Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.27 seconds)
Documents citing The Ambala Central Co-Operative Bank ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 12 June, 1990

Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997

Similarly in the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar [supra] the High Court of Punjab & Haryana considered the validity of the challenge the Section 17-B as violative of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution and negativing the said challenge it was held that Section 17- B does not in any way interfere or restrict the same and that the section only guarantees the workers the payment of wages by the employer during the course of proceeding in the High Court or the Supreme Court of Course subject to the safeguard provided for irrespective of the result of the proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 206 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Lakhbir Singh vs P.O.Labour Court, U.T.Chandigarh And ... on 14 December, 2015

Having considered all the aspects of the case with the assistance of both the learned counsel and after perusing the record, there appears to be hardly any doubt that Mr. Arora is correct in his submission that the petitioner was deprived of his right maturing at 240 days to secure to him his industrial rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The termination, in all probability, was occasioned by a decision 'written or unwritten', not to let the petitioner complete 240 days of service. He cites the decision of this Court in The Gurdaspur Central Co- operative Bank Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur & ors., 1991(1) SLR 209; The Kapurthala Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundhur and others, 1984(1) SLR 435 and the decision of the MONIKA VERMA 2015.12.18 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.12366 of 1995 -2- Supreme Court in The Ferozepur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr., 1985(2) SLR 437, Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam & ors., 1996(4) SCT 143; Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 497, and Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, (2011) 6 SCC 584; to plead that the writ petitioner was unfairly dealt with and was deprived of his industrial rights by an unfair labour practice and this action of the respondents is criticized.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R N Raina - Full Document

Surendra Kumar Gyani vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 3 September, 1992

In support of this contention, the learned Counsel has referred to a Bench decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made in the case of the Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hullundur and Ors. 1984 Labour and Industrial Cases 974. It has been held by the said case that where the service s of the workmen were terminated on their rendering 230 days service with notional breaks, when the work of the workmen was satisfactory, and others had been recruited in their place, it was an instance of unfair labour practice and in such circumstances the women were held entitled to reinstatement with full/ backwages.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 58 - G N Ray - Full Document

The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 3 February, 1994

In fact, somewhat identical proposition came up for consideration before this Court in case reported as Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Kapurthala v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1984 (2) I.L.R. 333 (DB). Facts: Services of workmen terminated when each of them completed 230 days. No departmental enquiries were held or charge-sheets were issued to determine their fault or misconduct. No retrenchment compensation was given. The plea of the Bank was that services were for a specified period and that too with notional breaks and thus the workers were neither entitled to any retrenchment compensation nor reinstatement. The Court after dilating upon various aspects of the matter held that the attempt of the employer to disperse with the services of the workman so as to deprive him continuity of service for a specified period i.e. 240 days as envisaged Under Section 25B and 25F of the Act amounts to an unfair labour practice unless it is found that the conduct and service of the workman was unsatisfactory - The present case is on a better footing. The respondent-workman has worked for more than 240 days and his work has been found to be satisfactory by the concerned authorities as per certificate given in this regard. Examined thus, we find that the award of the Labour Court is perfectly just and legal and does not call for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court and consequently dismiss the same.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Gurvinder Singh Rana vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 3 April, 1998

8. As regards the delay in making of the reference, the explanation forthcoming, is that because the appeal was pending, therefore, the petitioner could not make the reference on an earlier occasion. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner is being placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of The Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and Anr., 1990(5) Services Law Reporter 509; The Management of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Miss.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document

M.K. Kohli vs Alfadeal Chemicals And Anr. on 6 January, 1997

5. A perusal of the impugned award Annexure P.2 would show that M.K. Kohli petitioner raised an industrial issue by alleging himself to be the workman against respondent No. 1 treating it as an industry. Issue No. 4 of the impugned award would show that the Labour Court treated the petitioner as a workman and finding of this issue has gone against the management/employer. Under issue No. 7, the Labour Court treated respondent No. 1 as having been registered under Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. Under issue No. 9 it was categorically held by the Labour Court that the termination of services of the workman was unjustified and this issue was decided against the management. However, under Issue No. 10, the Labour Court relied upon a judgment reported as FJR Vil. 57 page 206, Nawanshahar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court, Jullundur, and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement from the date when his services were terminated, but he will be entitled to only 2 months wages as notice pay. This finding was given on the assumption that respondent No. 1 is registered under the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - R L Anand - Full Document
1   2 Next