Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Iklash Hussain vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 18 October, 2006

The Management Of Airport Authority Of ... vs Sh. Kuldeep Singh on 7 July, 2021

5. The submissions of Mr. Jawahar Raja, ld. counsel appearing for the Respondents, is that the assertion that the Respondents are unemployed is in itself sufficient, and it is not necessary for the Respondents to give any further details as to the source of livelihood, number of children, whether their spouse is employed or not, etc. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the ld. Division Bench of this court in Shri Iklash Hussain v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2006 (92) DRJ 749, to argue that the provision of Section 17B needs to be fully given effect to, and the last drawn wages would be liable to be paid during the pendency of the writ petitions.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Vikas Kumar Sharma vs Bsh Household Appliances ... on 11 October, 2021

3.2. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that, the direction [which is extracted hereinabove] is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Workmen v. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 534 as also the judgments rendered by two Division Benches of this Court i.e., in LPA No.1902/2006 titled Iklash Hussain v. Delhi Transport Corporation, dated 18.10.2006, and, in LPA No.190/2006 titled Airport Authority of India v. Puran Chand & Ors., dated 08.09.2006.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Icon Printing Process (P) Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 March, 2007

In the course of arguments, counsel for the workman has relied on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1902/2006 entitled Shri Iklash Hussain v. Delhi Transport Corporation' decided on 18th October, 2006, to state that self employment or assistance rendered by relatives for sustenance and survival cannot be termed as employment in any establishment, so as to disentitle the workman from the emoluments payable under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the said judgment, reliance has been placed by the Division Bench on various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, including the following:
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - H Kohli - Full Document

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

A reading of this shows that even if it is demonstrated that the workmen in question are running their own business and are receiving profits from such business, benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be denied to them. What is required to be seen is whether the workman was employed for remuneration under another employer; and so long as that test is not satisfied, relief under Section 17-B is available. This proposition has also been reaffirmed in Iklash Hussain v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2006 (9) AD (Delhi) 187 where in paragraph 12 thereof, a Division Bench of this Court has specifically affirmed the view of the leaned Single Judge taken in the aforesaid case of Taj Services Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal-I and Ors. (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - S K Misra - Full Document

Vikas Kumar Sharma vs Bsh Household Appliances ... on 7 October, 2021

3.2. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that, the direction [which is extracted hereinabove] is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Workmen v. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 534 as also the judgments rendered by two Division Benches of this Court i.e., in LPA No.1902/2006 titled Iklash Hussain v. Delhi Transport Corporation, dated 18.10.2006, and, in LPA No.190/2006 titled Airport Authority of India v. Puran Chand & Ors., dated 08.09.2006.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1