Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing Pradeep S/O Rajkumar Jain vs Manganese Ore(India) Limited on 10 December, 2021

Munendra Pal Gangwar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 May, 2024

14. We have also, however, noticed that there was hardly any worthwhile reason for the respondent to terminate the services. The impugned order [Pradeep v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10125] itself shows that there was no basis for termination of the services of the appellant. When the appellant was qualified and particularly, when the appellant also has a case that all this was done for the reason that he had taken up certain issues relating to the manner in which the affairs of the respondent was being run, we would think that the High Court was in error in not making appropriate order relating to back wages."
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.Krishna, Ranga Reddy District vs Gmoperation, The Mgmt Of Engine Volves ... on 16 October, 2024

14. We have also, however, noticed that there was hardly any worthwhile reason for the respondent to terminate the services. The impugned order [Pradeep v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10125] itself shows that there was no basis for termination of the services of the appellant. When the appellant was qualified and particularly, when the appellant also has a case that all this was done for the reason that he had taken up certain issues relating to the manner in which the affairs of the respondent was being run, we would think that the High Court was in error in not making appropriate order relating to back wages."
Telangana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A K Shavili - Full Document

Rajo Begum Age 52 Years vs Punjab & Sind Bank Ltd Through Its ... on 12 March, 2024

21. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made hereinabove, it is held that the respondents had dispensed the service of the petitioner in the month of September 2011 in an illegal and arbitrary manner, as such, the order impugned whereby she was retired is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. She shall also be entitled to the back wages in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments in Union of India & Ors vs Ram Bahadur Yadav, 2021 Legal Eagle (SC) 823; and Pradeep vs Manganese Ore (India) Limited & Ors, 2021 Legal Eagle (SC) 972.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.M. Operations, Management Of Engine ... vs Industrial Tribunalii, Hyd And Anr on 16 October, 2024

14. We have also, however, noticed that there was hardly any worthwhile reason for the respondent to terminate the services. The impugned order [Pradeep v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10125] itself shows that there was no basis for termination of the services of the appellant. When the appellant was qualified and particularly, when the appellant also has a case that all this was done for the reason that he had taken up certain issues relating to the manner in which the affairs of the respondent was being run, we would think that the High Court was in error in not making appropriate order relating to back wages."
Telangana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A K Shavili - Full Document

Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National ... vs Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava And ... on 30 January, 2024

(58) The next issue raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is related to grant of consequential relief including back wages to the writ petitioner/private respondents by the learned Single Judge. This Court finds that the learned Single judge has returned a finding that the private respondent/writ petitioner was not at fault and yet he was visited with illegal termination merely because there had been selected during the tenure of a Vice Chancellor, against whom certain allegations have been made. Besides the fact that no charges-sheet or inquiry was conducted as has been envisaged under the relevant rules of the University, the principle of Natural Justice was also not followed by the University while passing the termination order. Since, this Court has upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge and has found the said to have been passed on sound legal principles, this Court does not find any reasons as to why the consequential relief, including back wages should not be granted to private respondent. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep vs Manganese Ore (India) Limited and others; (2022) 3 SCC 683 has held at paragraph 12 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next