Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 849 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007

Bijoy Kumar Singh @ Vijay Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 26 April, 2022

48. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Singh, the learned Advocate for the appellant/employer has further argued that the workmen never established before the Tribunal that they were not gainfully employed after their termination. He further submits that in the award, though there is a reference that the workmen had denied that they were in employment after their termination from the Gas Agency, but it was never established and, therefore, no occasion arose for the appellant/employer to have accepted the reverse burden of proving Patna High Court L.P.A No.1128 of 2019 dt.26-04-2022 29/33 otherwise. He, therefore, concludes that notwithstanding the judgments in J.K. Synthetics Vs. K.P. Agrawal (supra) and Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (supra), the situation had not become ripe before the Tribunal for the appellant/employer to have rebutted the contention of the workmen that they were not gainfully employed after their termination from service.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Ramabai Vijay Shende on 20 November, 2008

Therefore, observations in paragraph 20 in case of judgment of J. K. Synthetic ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:04:50 ::: wp541.05.sxw 10/15 vs. K.P. Agrawal were found to be more relevant by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Thereafter in paragraph 8 of said judgment this Court observed that; the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that an employee, whose services were terminated wrongly had not only to fight for his survival by getting such odd jobs as he can, but also has to fight a battle for getting himself reinstated in service. The Division Bench found that the Court cannot overlook the grim reality of unemployment pervading all stratas of the society and concluded by holding that it was not in a position to accept that the moment a person is sacked, he would find alternate means for his survival. It has been further observed that in such situation it would be unjust to insist upon a technical requirement of pleading and proof of absence of gainful employment by an employee who is wrongfully dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors on 12 August, 2013

vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 1432 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Mira Daruka vs The State Of Bihar on 26 April, 2022

48. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Singh, the learned Advocate for the appellant/employer has further argued that the workmen never established before the Tribunal that they were not gainfully employed after their termination. He further submits that in the award, though there is a reference that the workmen had denied that they were in employment after their termination from the Gas Agency, but it was never established and, therefore, no occasion arose for the appellant/employer to have accepted the reverse burden of proving Patna High Court L.P.A No.1128 of 2019 dt.26-04-2022 29/33 otherwise. He, therefore, concludes that notwithstanding the judgments in J.K. Synthetics Vs. K.P. Agrawal (supra) and Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (supra), the situation had not become ripe before the Tribunal for the appellant/employer to have rebutted the contention of the workmen that they were not gainfully employed after their termination from service.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Kartar Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 30 January, 2025

4.5 .5 The decisions in J.K. Synthetics (supra) and Deepali Gundu (supra) were considered in two decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahabir Prasad v. DTC, DTC, (2014) 144 DRJ 422 and Jagdish Chander v. DTC, DTC, 2020 LLR 754, wherein in the facts of the said case (Mahabir Prasad v. DTC case) Page 13 of 18 Item No.56 (Court - 5) O.A. No.2588/2017 reinstatement was directed by the Labour Commissioner, with continuity of service but without back wages. Thereafter, DTC reinstated the workman without any back wages and without any benefits on notional pay fixation, promotion, ACP, increments and withheld pension and terminal benef benefits also.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.R. Chandraiah vs Labour Court-Cum-Industrial ... on 21 January, 2016

38.vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - A V Sai - Full Document

Nagaon Education Society Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 10 October, 2025

[supra] the Supreme Court has observed that the observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.Agrawal is not good law. Thus, although there was no affidavit by the employee/respondent no.4 that he was not employed for the period he was out of service i.e. near about one year, no efforts were made by the management to demonstrate that the employee was in service. The employee is reinstated by the management within one year and employee was on permanent employment at the petitioner-
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tata Steel Limited (Earlier Known As ... vs Their Concerned Workman Rishishwar ... on 23 September, 2021

vs. Jarina Bee, (2003) 6 SCC 141 [Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday NarainPandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (2007) 2 SCC 433, Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. V. Venkatesan , (2009) 9 SCC 601, Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - K P Deo - Full Document

Standard Chartered Bank (Having Taken ... vs Presiding Officer, Central Govt. ... on 21 November, 2014

19.But the cases referred to above, where back wages were awarded, related to termination/retrenchment which were held to be illegal and invalid for non-compliance with statutory requirements or related to cases where the Court found that the termination was motivated or amounted to victimisation. The decisions relating to back wages payable on illegal retrenchment or termination may have no application to the case like the present one, where the termination (dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement) is by way of punishment for misconduct in a departmental inquiry, and the court confirms the finding regarding misconduct, but only interferes with the punishment being of the view that it is excessive, and awards a lesser punishment, resulting in the reinstatement of employee. Where the power under Article 226 or Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (or any other similar provision) is exercised by any court to interfere with the punishment on the ground that it is excessive and the employee deserves a lesser punishment, and a consequential direction is issued for reinstatement, the court is not holding that the employer was in the wrong or that the dismissal was illegal and invalid. The court is merely exercising its discretion to award a lesser punishment. Till such power is exercised, the dismissal is valid and in force. When the punishment is reduced by a court as being excessive, there can be either a direction for reinstatement or a direction for a nominal lump sum compensation. And if reinstatement is directed, it can be effective either prospectively from the date of such substitution of punishment (in which event, there is no continuity of service) or retrospectively, from the date on which the penalty of termination was imposed (in which event, there can be a consequential direction relating to continuity of service). What requires to be noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore, where reinstatement is not a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next