Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 503 (2.25 seconds)
Documents citing Ajaib Singh vs Sirhind Co-Operative ... on 10 February, 1998

U.P Power Corp Ltd Thru Managing ... vs Presiding Officer Labour Court ... on 3 February, 2020

34. This Court has also found in Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2015 (4) SCC 458, The Supreme Court has relied upon in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative (Supra) and reiterated that any limitation as prescribed under the Limitation Act would not apply in case an Industrial dispute is raised by a workman. No Reference to a Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

) Workman Has Raised The Present Dispute ... vs The Secretary on 12 July, 2018

In Ajaib Singh case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the plea of delay is raised by the employer, then it is required for the employer to prove the real prejudice caused to the management/employer. In the present   case,     once   the   workman   has   been   regularized   as   Safai Karamchari   because   he   was   appointed   as   daily   wager   i.e.       as Chowkidar cum safai Karamchari and finally in the year 1988 he himself had   been   successful   candidate   for   the   post   of   LDC   and   was   duly appointed as LDC by the employer, than after a gap of 27­28 years workman can not be allowed to raise the dispute that he should have been regularized on the post of LDC in the year 1982 from the date of his initial joining. No reasonable explanation has been furnished by the workman as to why he had not raised the dispute either in the year 1982 when he was regularized as Safai Karamchari or in the year 1988 when he himself had become successful candidate in the departmental examination of LDC.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalit Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 March, 2007

In Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank v. Neelam Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although, the court cannot import a period of limitation when the statute does not prescribe the same, as was observed in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Anr. (supra) but it does not mean that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the appropriate Government while making reference or in a case where such reference is made the workman would be entitled to the relief at the hands of the Labour Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Surendra Singh on 6 October, 2006

It would be evident from para 4 of the statement of claim that respondent workman had given month wise details of his working with the management and in reply to the claim of the management, it was admitted that many of those assertions with respect to month wise details. If these are counted backward from the month of January, 1984 till December, 1984 on the basis of admissions made by the management in their reply to the claim, the admitted period of working of the respondent workman comes to 271 days. Arguments of management being prejudiced on account of delay and that the burden of proof lay on the workman to prove his working for 240 days are only misconceived in the facts of the present case. What is however to be seen is whether the learned Labour Court has correctly applied the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaiab Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Anr. (supra) which has been later reiterated in certain subsequent other judgments that in the event of delay in raising the dispute, the relief granted to the workman should be suitably moulded. In the impugned award principles in my view has not been correctly applied by the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court has completely mis-applied those principles when directed that the respondent workman should be re-instated in service although without back wages. There was also no justification for awarding a sum of Rs. 2500A as compensation due to mental agony suffered by the workman. The award of such compensation and the reason for awarding such compensation are both foreign to the Labour laws.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Parsa Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 January, 2007

In Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank v. Neelam (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although, the court cannot import a period of limitation when the statute does not prescribe the same, as was observed in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Anr. (supra) but it does not mean that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the appropriate Government while making reference or in a case where such reference is made the workman would be entitled to the relief at the hands of the Labour Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

U.P. State Electricity Board And Anr. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-Iv And ... on 29 April, 2003

The Principles laid down by the Apex Court in two decisions, referred to in the aforesaid judgment, namely Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and Ors., reported in 1999 (82) FLR 137 (SC), and in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit v, U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in 2001 (90) FLR 754 (SC), will apply and the claim of the petitioners-employer that there was no doubt, delay or that the Labour Court has admitted the stale claim delayed, has rightly been rejected by the Labour Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - A Kumar - Full Document

Lal Singh Rathore vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors on 8 June, 2009

Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. & Anr. (supra), while considering the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provision of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. It was further held that no reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the Tribunal, Labour Court, or Board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. Even otherwise, as noticed above, the petitioner was facing a criminal trial before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jodhpur on an FIR lodged by the respondent-Bank in relation to the transaction in issue and by a judgment and order Annexure-1 dated 21st March, 1997, the petitioner and co-accused Shri M.S.Gaur came to be acquitted. The petitioner was under a 31 SBCWP NO.3073/1997.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

The Management Of Tamil Nadu State ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 31 August, 2006

28. In view of the said factual position, I am of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court as if the second respondent is deemed to have been if continuous service for 240 days in the preceding 12 months has no legal basis whatsoever. As far as the other contention that in cases where that the delay is on the part of the workman in approaching the Labour Court, the backwages can be reduced as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing cum processing service society, Ltd., and Anr. reported in 1999(2) L.L.N.674 to the effect that the court can mould relief by refusing backwages in cases were there is a delay on the part of the employee in approaching the Labour Court, there is absolutely no dispute about the same. However, the conclusion arrived at in this case for the reasons stated earlier is that the second respondent has not proved that he has in fact worked under the employer for a continuous period of 240 days in the proceeding one year.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

) Workman Has Raised The Present Dispute ... vs Management Of Mcd on 25 August, 2018

22)   In   view   of   the   judgment   of  Ajaib   Singh   vs   The   Sirhind   Co­ Operative   Marketing   cum   Processing   Service   Society   Ltd   and another (Supra),    it is clear that Limitation Act does not apply to the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal has  only  to see whether there was any in­ordinate  delay in raising the dispute or not. In the present case, it is admitted case of the parties that earlier also such demands   have   been   raised   by   the   fellow   workmen     of   the   present workman,  on which  order was also passed by Ld Industrial Tribunals. Against   these   order,   MCD   had   filed   various   Writ   petitions   before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, some of them were decided in favour of the MCD and some of these were dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next