Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ii And ... on 3 February, 2005

Electricity Distribution Division And ... vs Ajuddi And Another on 15 March, 2018

In U.P. State Electricity Board, Aligarh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra & others 2009 (123) FLR 340, this Court held that a workman would only be entitled for reinstatement on the post on which he was originally working i.e. on muster roll and consequently his back wages would have to be calculated as admissible to a daily wage worker. The claim of the workman for wages of a regular Class-IV employee would be an entitlement under the Award which could be adjudicated only in an application under Section 6H(2).
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

Union Of India Through D.R.M. And ... vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central ... on 17 October, 2023

16. The learned counsel for the private respondents could not justify the impugned order passed under sections 37-C(1) and C-(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once a fresh cause of action has arisen on 20.08.2008, which has not been assailed before any competent forum, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the private respondents in U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) is distinguishable as the Court did not interfere in the awarded granted in favour of the workman and directed to reinstate with full back wages, but in the case in hand, the respondent nos. 2 to 11 were daily wage employees and not regular employees.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P Agrawal - Full Document

Akash Chaturvedi S/O Shri Radhe Shyam ... vs State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary ... on 19 December, 2005

12. Now coming to the issue of power of review of Labour Commissioner qua the provisions of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act and U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act 1978. Scheme of Act noted above clearly shows that the Labour Commissioner has not been vested with the authority to review. It is well settled that power of review can be exercised only when there is statutory provision in said regard. Power of review however, can also be exercised by an authority in the event of fraud and misrepresentation having being practiced and there being gross violation of principle of natural justice causing serious prejudice to the rights of parties and in no other contingency-said power could be invoked, and as such review application clearly is not maintainable in the fact of the present case. Much reliance has been placed on the judgments in case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. and in the case of U.P. State of Electricity Board and Anr. v. Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal reported in 1985 (51) FLR 551 and in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 1995(1) ESC 158 for the preposition that Review is main table. The judgment cited by the respondents will not be applicable in the fact of the present case, inasmuch as Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and U.P. I.D. Act 1947 there is specific provision of review and time limit has also been provided for making Review application and award can be set aside when same is exparte and when sufficient cause is furnished for non-appearance. Under U,P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act 1978 there is no such provision of review.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Vice Chancellor Chandra Shekhar Azad ... vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal ... on 7 March, 2006

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has no power or jurisdiction to pass an award for the purpose of regularization of services of an employee. The Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in terms of the reference. The Labour Court has wrongly held that the juniors have been regularized and the allegations to this effect made in the impugned order are absolutely vague as in the matter of regularization several factors are to be considered, as Articles 14 and 16 cannot be said to be applicable. It has clearly been stated in the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner that there is no industrial dispute and the reference has been made without applying its mind and the reference is incompetent and is not maintainable for want of industrial dispute. It has also been stated that the employees are temporarily engaged on the basis of daily wage for specific job of casual nature which cannot be said to be regular work, as such respondent No. 1 has got no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to pass an order of regularization. The reliance has been placed upon a judgment reported in 2003 (2) ESC 1007, State of U.P. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Meerut and has placed reliance on para 25 of the said judgment which is reproduced below:
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 8 - S Kumar - Full Document

Ashu @ Iklash S/O. Mr. Akhtar Ali vs M/S. Marcos Enterprises Pvt. Ltd on 13 December, 2014

8. ARGUMENTS None appeared for workman to address final arguments. I have heard Ms. Page 7 of 11 (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) POLC­XI/KKD/13.12.2014 Ashu @ Iklash Vs. M/s. Marcos Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. DID No. 164/14 Satender Verma, Advocate for management. Written submissions have also been filed by Ld. counsel for management. Ld. counsel for management relied upon case laws case laws reported as (i) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2004 LLR 351; (ii) Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas V (2004) SLT 566; (iii) Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. V (2004) SLT 686; (iv) UCO Bank Vs. Presiding Officer & Another 1999 V AD (DELHI) 514; (v) Suresh Chand Mathur Vs. Harish Chand Mathur 2010 IX AD (DELHI) 546; (vi) Chander Sain and Others Vs. J. B. Garments 2009 LLR 959; (vii) Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Rafi 2006 LLR 1080; (viii) The Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimani 2002 LLR 339; (ix) Ravi N. Tikoo Vs. Deputy Commissioner (S.W) & Ors. 2006 LLR 496; (x) Automobile Association of Upper India Vs. P.O. Labour Court II & Anr. 2006 LLR 851; (xi) U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court­IV, Kanpur and another 2004 LLR 418; (xii) Prem Vs. Chirag Boutique 2008 LLR 191; (xiii) Dhyan Singh Vs. Raman Lal 2001 LLR 148 and (xiv) Manager, R.B.I. Banglore, Appellant Vs. S. Mani and Others AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2179. Material available on judicial file perused very carefully. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case as they arise on the basis of material available on judicial file.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next