Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 122 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Samishta Dube vs City Board, Etawah And Anr on 26 February, 1999

State vs Ashokbhai on 7 April, 2011

"We are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish the said fact. See: Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam, Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai."
Gujarat High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010

"We are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish the said fact. See: Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam, Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai."
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 886 - Full Document

M.C.D. vs Narender Kumar And Anr. on 9 July, 2007

9. I find merit in the submissions of counsel for the respondents so far as Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned. Section 25-H of the I.D. Act does enjoin a duty on the employer to give an opportunity to the retrenched workman, in the event of employer proposing to take into, his employment any person, on the same post, and in such an eventuality the retrenched workman who offers himself for re-employment shall have preference over other person. The Supreme Court in Samishta Dubey v. Citi Board, Etawah and Anr. (supra) has held that the definition of 'workman' in industrial law is not restricted to regular employees and the same would also include daily wagers and the rule of seniority is applicable to daily, wagers also. With this settled legal position, the only ground which was available to the petitioner management was to bring its case within the scope of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is an exception to Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the-Industrial Disputes Act. Although, in the present petition as well as in the reply filed by the petitioner management to the statement of claim of respondent workmen, a plea has been taken that these workmen were employed on daily wages for seasonal work for a period of 53 days but no document in support thereof was placed by the petitioner to support the said assertion of seasonal employment of the respondents workmen for a limited period of 53 days. In the absence of any documentary or oral evidence adduced by the petitioner management it is difficult to believe the said assertion of the petitioner management. There cannot be any dispute that all the documents relating to appointment of the respondents workmen were in power and possession of the petitioner MCD and it was for the petitioner management to establish that the case of the respondents workmen falls within the exception as provided under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the evidence adduced by the petitioner management the witness pleaded his ignorance about the specific work and specific duration for which the services of the respondents workmen were taken. The said witness also admitted that some of the persons were appointed as Beldar, in the later period, after retrenchment of the present workmen from their said job of Beldar. In view of such clear admission on the part of the witness produced by the petitioner, no credence can be given to the bald assertion of the petitioner, pleading the case of seasonal employment covered within the said exception of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Sh. Kumod Kumar vs M/S New Delhi Municipal Council on 21 October, 2009

18. In his cross examination, list of casual/ seasonal/ daily wager/ Beldars and Malies working with Management and engaged by it in the year 2005 have been proved as Ex WW2/1. However, name of the workman does not find mention in the said list. Workman has relied upon this list with a view to highlight that Management had employed casual workers even after 31.10.09 in preference to workman which is violation of section 25H and thus workman is entitled to reinstatement. However, in Samishta Dube vs City Board, Etawah and another ( supra), it has been held that rule of 'first come, last go' could be deviated from by an employer in cases of lack of efficiency or lack of 10 confidence etc.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat vs Bhagyesh on 9 January, 2012

"We are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish the said fact. See: Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam, Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai."
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

State vs Dhirsinh on 9 January, 2012

"We are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish the said fact. See: Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam, Samishtaa Dube v. City Board, Etawah, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai."
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Vadia vs Pratapbhai on 8 March, 2010

We are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish the said fact. See: Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam, Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010

"We are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish the said fact. See: Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam, Samishtaa Dube v. City Board, Etawah, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai."
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Nagar Palika Parishad Shamsabad Agra vs Labour Court Up Agra & Others on 4 May, 2017

The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of City of Nagpur Vs. Its Employees: AIR 1960 SC 675 and Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others: AIR 1978 SC 548 and Samishta Dube Vs. City Board Etawah and another : AIR 1999 SC 1056 were relied upon by the counsel for the appellant. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court holding that Nagar Palika is an industry for the purpose of Industrial Dispute Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next