Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Pwd Employees' Union vs State Of Gujarat on 14 October, 2004

Chauhan Rupsinh Motisinh vs Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board on 30 July, 2021

12. Additionally, Mr. Oza has also submitted the written submission in rejoinder to the reply given by the Board and there also, a submission is canvassed to the effect that even if the petitioners are part-timers, they are also covered by the said judgment of the Coordinate Bench, as referred to above, and therefore, not only the part-timers have been held entitled rather they have earned said benefits by virtue of the judgment and several decisions have been brought to the notice of this Court and the Coordinate Bench in the written submissions and thereby requested to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. Said written submission in rejoinder the Court deems it fit to incorporate hereunder:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

State vs Indrakumar on 18 March, 2010

I have considered submissions made by learned AGP Ms. Mathur. I have also perused impugned award passed by labour court. Contention of petitioner that petitioner establishment is not covered by definition of industry has been considered by labour court while considering that in Gujarat Bhavan where respondent was working as daily wager watchman, said Bhavan was having income by giving rooms on rent and systematic activities are being carried out and Division Bench of this Court has considered in case of PWD Employees Union versus State of Gujarat, 1987 (2) GLR 1070 that R&B Department/Irrigation Department is held to be industry covered by definition of industry under sec. 2(j) of ID Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Kutchh District Panchayat vs Mangalbhai K. Rabari & on 4 January, 2016

On the contrary, in paragraph-29 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed, inter alia, that, "considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.10.2010 in PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat and connected matters and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to all the daily-wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at para 29 above. The appellants are directed accordingly." Entire paragraph-29 of the above- referred decision of the Apex Court reads as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Pwd & Forest Employees'Union vs Poonam Chand Parmar on 14 June, 2018

On the contrary, in   paragraph­29 of the said decision,  the Apex   Court   has   observed,  inter   alia,  that,  "considering   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the   finding   of   the   Gujarat   High   Court   dated  29.10.2010  in  PWD Employees   Union   v.   State   of   Gujarat   and   connected   matters and the fact that the said judgment is   binding   between   the   parties,   we   are   of   the   view that the appellants should be directed to   grant the benefit of the scheme as contained   in the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to all the   daily­wage   workers   of   the   Forest   and   Environment   Department   working   for   more   than five years, providing them the benefits as   per   our   finding   at   para   29   above.   The   appellants   are   directed   accordingly."   Entire   paragraph­29   of   the  above   referred  decision   Page 106 of 170 C/MCA/3021/2015 CAV JUDGMENT of the Apex Court reads as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 1 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Shakinaben Mamadbhai Hala vs State Of Gujarat on 4 February, 2020

7. Having thus considered the issues, judgment referred by the Apex Court in PWD (supra) and the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.13545 of 2015, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate and pay family pension to the petitioner on the basis of her husband having rendered pensionable services and was entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Rule is made absolute to that extent.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Gameti Jesingbhai Martaji vs State Of Gujarat on 9 March, 2020

"30. Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of Gujarat High Court dated 29th October, 2010 in PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat and connected matters and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated 17-10-1988 to all the daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at Para 29 above. The appellants are directed accordingly. The Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 15 08:53:47 IST 2021 C/SCA/5998/2020 JUDGMENT judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29-10-2010 as affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 28-2-2012 stands modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the eligible daily- wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years including those who are performing work other than building maintenance and repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefit w.e.f. 29-10-2010 or subsequent date from which they are so eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions to the appellant State and its authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs."
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited vs Mahadev Dhanjibhai Khokhar on 30 January, 2023

On the contrary, in paragraph 29 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed, inter alia, that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.10.2010 in PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat and connected matters and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 02 20:40:47 IST 2023 C/LPA/1475/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023 17.10.1988 to all the daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at para 29 above. The appellants are directed accordingly. Entire paragraph 29 of the above referred decision of the Apex Court reads as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A J Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next