Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 321 (4.11 seconds)
Documents citing The Buckingham And Carnatic Co. Ltd vs Venkatiah And Anr on 2 August, 1963

L. Krishnan And Ors. vs The Divisional Personnel Officer, ... on 26 May, 1972

We have anxiously gone through the Supreme Court decisions referred to by the learned Judges and we are unable to find any consideration of the question of retrenchment in any of these decisions, In none of those cases the question whether Section 2(oo) of the Act will apply in a case where the termination is in accordance with the standing orders applicable to the employer and the employees is seen to have arisen for decision. Reference is seen made to the decisions in N. E.L. and P. Co. Ltd. v. Shreepathirao , Chartered Bank v. Chartered Bank Employees Union 1960-II L.L.J. , U.B. Dutt and Co. v. Its Workmen , Buckingham and Carnatic Co. v. Venkatiah , and Murugan Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal .
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Vibhushit Singh vs Ntpc Ltd. Through Its Chairman And 3 ... on 19 October, 2023

The case before the Supreme Court in Buckingham (supra) arose out of an award of the Labour Court, where the employer had refused to take back the workman in service. The workman proceeded on six days' leave starting from 10.01.1957, which, after taking into consideration the intervening holidays, expired on 18.01.1957. He did not report for duty on 19.01.1957 according to the employers, but remained absent without leave and without sending any communication seeking extension of leave. He sent a letter on 11.03.1957, saying that after reaching his village, he had suffered from fever and dysentery and treated by the Civil Assistant Surgeon. The letter was accompanied with a certificate issued by a government doctor. The medical certificate said that the workman had suffered from Chronic Malaria and Dysentery from 15.01.1957 to 17.03.1957. The workman appeared before the Manager, but was asked to report to the Senior Manager. The Medical Officer was unable to ascertain if he had been ill for a period of two months. The employers refused to take back the workman in service and informed him to the above effect on 23.03.1957, treating it to be a case of abandonment of service. His case was treated as one falling under Standing Order No. 8(ii) of the Standing Orders applicable to the employer's establishment. It was in the context of the aforesaid facts that it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court :
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Engineers India Ltd. vs Presiding Officer Labour Court on 5 March, 2018

74. The period for which the respondent remained absent from duty, without any sanctioned leave was, however, considerable, and the respondent cannot seek to evade all responsibility therefor. On the flip side, it cannot be gainsaid that the present writ petition has remained pending since 2004, and the order striking the name of the respondent off the rolls of the petitioner-company dates back a further eleven years. A quarter of a century has, therefore, elapsed, since the petitioner and respondent parted ways. Following the course of action WP(C) 17858/2004 page 76 of 80 adopted by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court as far back as in Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd (supra), and by the Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Times Ltd (supra), I, therefore, deem it proper to accord a quietus to the controversy, by directing an appropriate lump sum compensation, to be paid to the respondent- workman - a course of action which was also advocated by Ms. Birbal, though, needless to state, by way of demurrer.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Regional Director on 18 August, 2022

28. Dealing with this very Act, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah [AIR 1964 SC 11 1272] speaking through Gajendragadkar, J., (as he then was) held, accepting the contention of the learned counsel, Mr Dolia that : (AIR p. 1277, para 10) ‘10. … It is a piece of social legislation intended to confer specified benefits on workmen to whom it applies, and so, it would be inappropriate to attempt to construe the relevant provisions in a technical or a narrow sense. This position cannot be disputed. But in dealing with the plea raised by Mr Dolia that the section should be liberally construed, we cannot overlook the fact that the liberal construction must ultimately flow from the words used in the section. If the words used in the section are capable of two constructions one of which is shown patently to assist the achievement of the object of the Act, courts would be justified in preferring that construction to the other which may not be able to further the object of the Act.’” (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next