Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Management Of Ashok Hotel (A Unit If ... vs Govt. Of The National Capital Territory ... on 28 August, 2006

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Balwant Rai Ex. Cond. on 18 March, 2008

This view was also affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Hotel v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (2005) 83 DRJ 706. Counsel for the respondent workman states that her client is ready and willing to report for work and to work for the petitioner's corporation in the meanwhile. It will be open to the corporation to take him back at work in any capacity it deems suitable, without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the writ petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - S K Misra - Full Document

Director General (Works), Cpwd vs Sant Lal And Ors. on 28 April, 2008

7. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be paid full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule. For calculating wages last drawn, the revision of pay, if any, will also be taken into consideration by the petitioner management. It is further directed that the management shall pay to the workman an amount equal to the minimum wages payable or the last wages drawn by him whichever is higher. Further, keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis Dena Bank v. Kirti Kumar Patel and Regional Authority, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam and decisions of this Court in Ashok Hotel v. Govt. of NCT and Ors. and Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2002 (61) DRJ 521 (DB), in the interest of justice, and to balance equities, such payment shall be subject to the workman filing an affidavit within a period of two weeks giving an undertaking that in the event of this Court deciding the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, he shall be liable to refund to the petitioner, any amount paid to him in terms of the present order over and above the amount he was drawing at the time of his termination.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S K Misra - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ek Lakh Hussain [Along With Lpa No. ... on 21 May, 2008

According to him, even the observations in the subsequent decision of another Division Bench in Ashok Hotel v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 123 (2005) DLT 384 (DB) to the effect that the Supreme Court had in Dena Bank (II) v. Ghanshyam JT 2001 (Supp.1) SC 229 held that the wages would be payable from the date of the award, was not on an incorrect reading of that judgment.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Kodungalloor Town Co-Operative Bank ... vs Surendra Babu on 11 October, 2006

We find ourselves unable to agree with the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Hotel's case supra. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above and we hold that the respondent is entitled to get wages only during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court. We also indicate the prayer of the petitioner was also for wages during the pendency of the proceedings even though learned Judge has granted from the date of the award.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. vs Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Officers ... on 29 January, 2007

14. The Tribunal was told that it should not set aside the seniority list as there was no reference in respect of seniority list. If the Tribunal had intended to set aside the seniority list and other persons were going to be affected, the Tribunal should have given notice to the other persons who were going to be affected and would become juniors. This Court in Management of Ashoka Hotel v. Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. WP(C) No. 111 of 1997 observed as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S N Dhingra - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Narender Kumar on 13 September, 2006

In our view, the impugned order dated 30.9.2005 of the learned Single Judge directing that the workman should be paid statutory minimum wages which is higher than the last wages drawn and that such payment should be made from the date of award, i.e. 21.8.2001, is in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and calls for no interference. Also, in exercise of the wide jurisdiction under Article 226 the learned Single Judge was justified, in the interests of justice to modify the earlier order to bring it in conformity with the settled law.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Jagdish Chander And Anr. on 2 April, 2008

3. Under that section, the employer is however given an opportunity of demonstrating that the workman in question has been employed and that he had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof when proceedings against the said award have been pending before this Court. In case he were to do so, then the workman would not be entitled to any order for payment of wages under this Section for such period or part thereof, as the case may be. However, in this case, the employer has not been able to prove any such facts which might demonstrate the employment of the workman whereby the workman can be said to be receiving adequate remuneration. The stand is merely based on a presumption of having been employed for the reason that it is difficult for an individual to survive for years together without any source of income. While this may be true, it is also equally well settled by the Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration and also by this Court in Taj Services Limited v. Industrial Tribunal I ; The Management of the Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited v. The Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. ; DTC and Ors. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I and Ors. 2002 (2) AD (Delhi) 112; & Management of Ashok Hotel v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. CM No. 8312/2004 in WP(C) No. 2076/2003 decided on 30.11.2005; to the effect that what the Section contemplates is regular, gainful employment and not merely any remuneration or stop gap sporadic earnings that might have been earned by the workman with a view to keeping the body and soul together. It has been repeatedly held that this section, if construed in such a narrow, literal and pedantic sense, it would lose all its efficacy.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S K Misra - Full Document

Kapur Son (India) vs N.C.T. And Anr. on 24 March, 2008

In the light of the ratio in Dena Bank v. Kirtikumar T. Patel and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Hotel v. Govt. of NCT 2005 (83) DRJ 706, the workman is directed to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit that in the event of this Court deciding the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, he shall be liable to refund to the petitioner any amount paid to him in terms of the present order over and above the amount he was drawing at the time of his termination, within four weeks.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - S K Misra - Full Document
1