Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (2.30 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana & Anr vs Anirudh Kumar (D) Th:Lrs on 11 February, 2008

Union Territory Chandigarh And Anr vs P.O. Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court ... on 23 September, 2014

Per contra, learned counsel for the workman drew our attention to the provisions of Section 26 of the 1961 Act to contend that where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours on any day or is required to work on any day of rest, he shall be entitled to the wages at the rate of twice of his ordinary wages in respect of the overtime work. He submits that for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2009, the workman was drawing wages in the pay scale of Rs.3120- 6200 and was paid overtime wages in terms of the provisions of Section 26 of the 1961 Act. Further, pursuant to the revision of pay scales in July, 2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to Rs.5910-20200 + 2400 Grade Pay + DA, the workman was paid arrears of difference of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to June, RAJAN 2014.11.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.891 of 2014(O&M) -12- 2009, calculated on the basis of the revised pay scale. Still further, w.e.f. July, 2009, workman was being paid overtime wages on the revised pay scale in terms of the provisions of Section 26 of the 1961 Act. That being so, he contends that there could be no justification to deny the workman the difference of overtime wages on the basis of revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to June, 2009. He further maintains that overtime wages were very much a part of the wages being drawn by the workman under the 1961 Act. Reliance is placed upon a decision of a Single Bench and a Division Bench of this court that were relied upon even by the labour court and referred to by the learned Single Judge in his decision. Before we proceed further, we may point out that Division Bench judgment in Anirudh's case (supra) was assailed by way of SLP, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed, as it suffered from inordinate delay. However, the question of law was kept open.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arun Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 April, 2026

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing the summoning order dated 02.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Badaun in Criminal Case No. 3370 of 2022 (State Vs. Anirudh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0071 of 2021 under Sect ion 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Hazaratpur, District Badaun as well as to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - G Chowdhary - Full Document

Anirudh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 November, 2022

The present application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to issue a direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur to decide the Case No. 059 of 2020 (State Vs. Anirudh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 0837 of 2019 under Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2008, Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur, within stipulated period.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S K Pachori - Full Document
1