Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Pali Devi And Others vs Chairman Managing Committee & Anr on 15 February, 1996

State Of Jharkhand Through Department ... vs Nirmal Singh on 20 May, 2004

In fact, the aspect sought to be achieved by the form prescribed was the subject matter of discussion by the Supreme Court in Pali Devi v. Chairman, Managing Committee, 1996 (3) SCC 296. Therein, the Supreme Court was considering whether an ex-employee, as distinguished from an employee, could make an application under Section 20(2) of the Act. Their Lordships held :-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Yashdeep Trexim vs Board For Industrial And Financial ... on 25 January, 2011

The decisions in Pali Devi v. Chairman Managing Committee reported in (1996) 3 SCC 296 [holding that the word 'employee' in Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act includes ex-employee], S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 596 (where 'marriage' in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was ruled to include proposed marriage which did not ultimately take place), K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal reported in AIR 1997 SC 628 [where the word 'family' in Section 2(6-A) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 was read in the context to include a foster son] were relied on in support of the submission that user of the word "means" to define an expression in the statute is not decisive; what is important is the context in which the expression has been used.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 89 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document

Govt. Medical College & Hospital Sec.32 vs Authority Appointed Under Minimum ... on 10 October, 2014

Reliance can also be placed upon the observations of the Apex Court in Pali Devi's case (supra) wherein while interpreting the provisions of the Act, it was held that definition of the employee would Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2002 (O&M) 11 also mean ex-employee so that the full effect could be given to the intendment of the Act. The relevant observations read as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document
1