Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Balbir Singh vs Punjab Roadways & Anr. on 8 December, 2000

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Abdul Azeez on 21 November, 2003

20 Even assuming that an application could have been entertained by the Labour Court in regard to orders of termination communicated prior to 7-10-1987, the Labour Court ought to have rejected the claim on the ground that it was stale and non-existing. The Labour Court is not precluded from examining whether the claims is in regard to a subsisting claim or whether the claim should be rejected on the ground that the dispute had become stale and non- existent on account of long unexplained delay and laches on the part of the workman in raising the dispute. The fact that a provision is made in Section 10(4A) for filing an application challenging the termination order does not mean that the Labour Court is precluded from examining whether the dispute is subsisting or had become stale. Unexplained delay is a ground to deny relief - vide NEDUNGADI BANK v. K. P.MADHAVAN KUTTY, BALBIR SINGH v. PUNJAB ROADWAYS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER v. SHIVALINGA(Supra). Therefore, even if the petition was maintainable, 16 years of delay in seeking relief, disentitles the workman to any relief.
Karnataka High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

The Ex.Engineer,Pwdamravati & Anor vs Anna Pundlikrao Wankhade on 14 June, 2017

In Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways as regards Ajaib Singh this Court observed: (SCC pp.134-35, paras 5-6) "5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the Tribunal committed error in denying relief to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The learned counsel submitted that in industrial dispute delay should not be taken as a ground for denying relief to the workman if the order/ orders under challenge are found to be unsustainable in law.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ram on 7 March, 2025

9. Subsequent thereto, the workman filed a fresh complaint bearing number 87/1996 before the Tribunal on the ground that the 1 Balbir Singh vs. Punjab Roadways 2001 (1) SCC 133 2 Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank vs. Neelam 2005 (5) SCC 91 LPA 690/2018 & 707/2018 Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:25:39 counsel was not instructed to withdraw the petition. By award dated 28.01.2004, the Tribunal permitted the workman to raise a fresh dispute under Section 10 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ram on 7 March, 2025

9. Subsequent thereto, the workman filed a fresh complaint bearing number 87/1996 before the Tribunal on the ground that the 1 Balbir Singh vs. Punjab Roadways 2001 (1) SCC 133 2 Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank vs. Neelam 2005 (5) SCC 91 LPA 690/2018 & 707/2018 Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:25:39 counsel was not instructed to withdraw the petition. By award dated 28.01.2004, the Tribunal permitted the workman to raise a fresh dispute under Section 10 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Mohan Lal vs Assistant Engineer Rajasthan ... on 19 November, 2005

5. Ratio indicated in Ajaib Singh (supra) was distinguished in Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways (supra) on the ground that in Balbir Singh's case the plea of delay was raised by the management before the Industrial Tribunal. In the instant case since the plea regarding delay was not raised before the Labour Court learned single Bench was not justified in substituting its opinion for the opinion of Labour Court, more so when the workman was already reinstated by the employer.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sher Singh vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ... on 6 July, 2023

Section, then it will be incumbent on the part of the Labour Court not to entertain such an application since the condition does not only bars the special remedy but it also strikes at the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain such an application. Such an interpretation is in consonance with the general rule of interpretation of statute. Such construction will not also in any way prejudice the right of a workman to get his dispute resolved by a reference under sub-Section 10(1) of the Act provided the dispute sought to be raised do not become stale because of his inaction as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Balbir Singh Vs Punjab Roadways, Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Vs Prahlad Singh and Telecom District Manager Vs A.A.Angali".
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next