Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (1.40 seconds)
Documents citing Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board ... vs Ketanbhai Dinkarray Pandya on 9 May, 2000

Sh. Kuldeep Singh vs M/S Kalra Hospital Srcnc Pvt. Ltd on 29 April, 2022

11.6.2 In view of above citation it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the determination u/Sec. 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not extend to determination of dispute of entitlement or when there is no recognition of the said right by the employer. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) case has also relied on citation titled MCD v. Ganesh Razak. However the facts in the present case are distinguished.
Delhi District Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Gian Singh vs M/S Kalra Hospital Srcnc Pvt. Ltd on 29 April, 2022

11.6.2 In view of above citation it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the determination u/Sec. 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not extend to determination of dispute of entitlement or when there is no recognition of the said right by the employer. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) case has also relied on citation titled MCD v. Ganesh Razak. However the facts in the present case are distinguished.
Delhi District Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Employees State Insurance Scheme vs Damjibhai Chakubhai Patel on 28 January, 2005

8.1 In view of the same, and in view of the judgment, which we have cited, particularly judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Lokmat Newspapers (Supra), Kanhaiyalal Agrawal (Supra), Sharada Devi (Supra), judgments of this Court in the cases of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Supra) and Iswarlal (Supra), it is true that the learned Single Judge while examining the judgment of the tribunal, has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, when learned Single Judge also examining order of the Division Bench as well as order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and then reduced back wages from 100% to 40% has adjudicate the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State is maintainable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 2 - D K Trivedi - Full Document

Gujarat Water Resources Development ... vs Gujarat Jal Samatti Vikas Nigam Kamdar ... on 15 April, 2005

11.13 The learned advocate has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. K.D. Pandya reported in (2001) 8 SCR 301 where the Hon'ble Court has held that the paying capacity of the employer is not relevant consideration, therefore the case put forth by the Corporation is devoid of any merits. He further submitted that the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner has no relevance in this behalf. That case was regarding revision of pay scale whereas in the instant case there is no revision of pay scale and therefore the said judgment has no application at all. It was further submitted that the Corporation is totally controlled and owned by the State Government and the Corporation has demanded money for payment of overtime to the employees. Therefore the Corporation can demand the amount for payment for wages to the employees as per the award of the tribunal, therefore the Corporation has paying capacity as it is one of the subsidiaries of the State Government.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A Claim Was Filed U/S 33 C (2) Of The ... vs Presiding on 24 January, 2008

In case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board & 9 Anr. vs. Ketanbhai Dinkaray Pandya, Amroll, 2003 LLR 1118, fourty three workers claimed overtime wages in application under section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Labour Court passed an order allowing overtime wages. Ld Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the management. In LPA Hon'ble Division Bench accepted the appeal and made the following observation :
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

An Application U/S 33 C (2) Of The ... vs Presiding on 27 February, 2007

In case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Anr. vs. Ketanbhai Dinkaray Pandya, Amroll, 2003 LLR 1118, fourty three workers claimed overtime wages in application under section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Labour Court passed an order allowing overtime wages. Ld Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the management. In LPA Hon'ble Division Bench accepted the appeal and made the following observation :
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next