Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Workmen Represented By Hindustan V.O. ... vs Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation ... on 10 April, 2000

Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs The Judge, Labour Court And Ors. on 17 May, 2005

9. Thus, looking to the fact that Section 17B is a beneficial piece of legislation which has been enacted for the benefit of the workman as well as in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Dhan Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. supra and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen v. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. supra, the application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 is being decided first before disposal of the writ petition.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

National Institute Of Public ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 April, 2008

18. The practice of disposal of the petition as well as the application under Section 17B of the Act contemporaneously was deprecated by the Apex Court and the High Court was directed to first expeditiously dispose of the application under Section 17B by the Supreme Court in its decision reported at , Workmen, Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. While considering an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court cannot go into the merits of the case in the writ petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - A Kumar - Full Document

The General Secretary, Saudi Arabian ... vs Saudi Arabian Airlines on 12 October, 2022

4. Due to paucity of time, the Writ Petitions could not be heard finally on the assigned dates. Since these are applications under Section 17-B of the said Act, the same needs to be heard expeditiously. Mr. Talsania, learned senior advocate, made an effort to persuade me to take up the writ petitions itself for final hearing. A full-fledged hearing may not be possible for the present and therefore I proceed to decide the interim applications. I have to be cognisant of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen Represented By Hindustan vs. Hindustan
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 8 - M S Karnik - Full Document

Mill Mazdoor Sabha vs Rushbh Precision Bearing Ltd. And Ors. on 18 June, 2007

Mr. Mishra further relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Limited v. Hindustan Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. 2000 (3) LLM 1075 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order under challenge to the extent it requires dismissal of the writ petition and Section 17B application together and directed that 17B application should be disposed of with great promptitude and before dismissal of the writ petition. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order and judgment passed by the learned single Judge is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the learned single Judge without deciding the application for 17B decided the main petition.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document

The Management Of Tcpb, The Oberoi Palm ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 6 January, 2003

5. When this case came up for consideration of workman's grievance regarding non-compliance with Section 17-B of the Act, Mr. S. K. Patnaik, learned Advocate for the petitioner urged that the main writ petition might be disposed of. It has been submitted by Mr. Bose, learned Advocate for the workman that the main writ petition should not be heard unless the management complies with Section 17-B of the Act. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. v. Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors., 2000 (II) LLJ 792 (SC), wherein it was observed as follows ;
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - P Ray - Full Document

Container Corporation Of India Ltd. vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar on 2 December, 2004

1. The respondent workman, who appeared in person, prayed that the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for grant of wages during the pendency of the petition be heard at the first instance and thereafter alone the writ petition should be heard. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Workman represented by Hindustan V.O. Corporation Ltd. v. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. & Others, (2000) 9 SCC 534.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Airport Authority Of India vs Puran Chand And Ors. on 8 September, 2006

10. It was finally urged by Mr. Sabharwal, learned Counsel for the appellant that a proposal was made by the appellants to the Respondents to settle the disputes by offering to pay them the retrenchment compensation and that when the writ petition was listed before the learned Single Judge on 4.9.2006, the counsel for the Respondent workmen had sought time to seek instructions from his clients. It was submitted that since the writ petition is now listed for final arguments on 26.9.2006, this appeal should be deferred to some date thereafter. We are unable to agree to this request. As already pointed out by us the claim for the benefit under Section 17B of the Act ought not to be postponed till the disposal of the writ petition as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan V.O. Corporation Ltd. (supra). However, the disposal of this appeal, will not come in the way of parties, if they so choose, to arrive at a settlement. Any payment made in terms of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge under Section 17B of the I.D. Act would obviously be adjusted against any payment that may be agreed to be made by the appellant to the Respondents consequent upon such settlement.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next