Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing The Special Officer, Vellore ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, K. ... on 2 March, 2005

The vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 July, 2008

In Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills, Ammundy Post, Vellore vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore and Ors., 2005 LLR 653 it was held that a claim for overtime, made by the employees, will not be tenable when they have failed to prove as to who has authorised them to work beyond working hours and the reliance upon the time-card and its punching will not be sustainable since it only reflects the entry and exit and not working of overtime. Hence, the claim not being based on existing right could not be allowed by the Labour Court and the Learned Single Judge erred in upholding the said order. It was further held that the burden of proof of having worked for overtime lied upon the workmen and they have failed to prove as to who has authorized them to work overtime and as such their claim, in the absence of proof, will not be tenable more so when the employer has categorically stated that the Contd.....
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

11. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills, Ammundy Post. Vellore v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore & Ors. 2005 LLR 653 Hon'ble S. Markandey Katju, on the claim of the claimant for overtime allowance held that as per Section 101 & 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, burden of proof lies on the workman in that case to prove that he in fact worked overtime.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A Claim Was Filed U/S 33C(2) Of The ... vs Abdulhampeed Abruirasheed on 29 October, 2007

12. In view of judgments quoted above claim for overtime allowance is not maintainable because workman has merely made a vague plea that he worked daily for 4 hours w.e.f. January 1996 to 10 October 1996. No details were pleaded as required vide judgment in Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills, Ammundy Post. Vellore (supra). Keeping in view the same Mr. Markande Shukla Ld. AR for the workman stated on 19.9.07 that he did not press claim for overtime allowance.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A Claim Was Filed U/S 33C(2) Of The ... vs Abdulhampeed Abruirasheed on 29 October, 2007

12. In view of judgments quoted above claim for overtime 10 allowance is not maintainable because workman has merely made a vague plea that he worked daily for 4 hours w.e.f. January 1996 to October 1996. No details were pleaded as required vide judgment in Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills, Ammundy Post. Vellore (supra). Keeping in view the same Mr. Markande Shukla Ld. AR for the workman stated on 19.9.07 that he did not press claim for overtime allowance.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A Claim Was Filed U/S 33C(2) Of The ... vs Abdulhampeed Abruirasheed on 29 October, 2007

12. In view of judgments quoted above claim for overtime 10 allowance is not maintainable because workman has merely made a vague plea that he worked daily for 4 hours w.e.f. January 1996 to October 1996. No details were pleaded as required vide judgment in Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills, Ammundy Post. Vellore (supra). Keeping in view the same Mr. Markande Shukla Ld. AR for the workman stated on 19.9.07 that he did not press claim for overtime allowance.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A Claim Was Filed U/S 33C(2) Of The ... vs Abdulhampeed Abruirasheed on 29 October, 2007

12. In view of judgments quoted above claim for overtime 10 allowance is not maintainable because workman has merely made a vague plea that he worked daily for 4 hours w.e.f. January 1996 to October 1996. No details were pleaded as required vide judgment in Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills, Ammundy Post. Vellore (supra). Keeping in view the same Mr. Markande Shukla Ld. AR for the workman stated on 19.9.07 that he did not press claim for overtime allowance.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Application Was Filed By The vs Director on 17 November, 2007

13. Applicant has claimed an amount of Rs.3695/­ towards overtime allowance at double rate for working overtime. Management disputed the same. Applicant has not given particulars on the basis of which he has claimed overtime. In case of Special Officer, Vellore Co­operative Sugar Mills, Ammundy Post. Vellore v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore & Ors. 2005 LLR 653 Hon'ble Justice S. Markandey Katju, on the claim of the claimant for overtime allowance held as under :
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next