Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Haryana State Cooperative Supply And ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 21 November, 2000

Shri Paramjit Singh Ahuja vs Presiding Officer Labour Court-Vi And ... on 18 July, 2001

3. The question before Division Bench in the M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.'s case (supra) was whether orders under Section 17-B could be passed even where reinstatement has taken place. The judgment is a short one and does not indicate whether the Division Bench was of the view that upon reinstatement all prior claims would be automatically annihilated.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - V Sen - Full Document

Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs Presiding Officer on 9 November, 2010

benefit of holidays had already been computed." In R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co.Pvt. Ltd.'s case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an issue regarding lay of and whether compensation under Section 25-C of the Act was payable to the worker and also as to the quantum of compensation. The workman in this case had filed application under Section 33-C(2) for claiming this compensation for the period he had been laid of. The plea on behalf of the management was that no compensation shall be paid to a workman, who had been laid of, if he does not present himself to work and the issue arose for consideration about the ambit of Section 33-C of the Act. The objection was that reference under Section 10(1)(d) was the appropriate remedy.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - R Singh - Full Document

Senior Medical Officer, Incharge, ... vs Sukhwinder Singh And Anr. on 31 August, 2006

Further in the case of The Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Rohtak and Anr. 2001(3) RSJ 247 the workman, by virtue of various orders of appointment on 89 days basis had completed 240 days of service in the last calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It has been observed that the termination of such employee by such order amounts to unfair labour practice. The petitioner-department is relying on the government instructions dated 12.8.1996. The same are also of no help for the obvious reasons. It is not within the scope for which notice of motion had been issued. There was no such plea before the Labour Court relating to said instructions dated 12.8.1996. The said instructions, at no juncture, had also been placed on the record. The retrenchment has been defined in Section 2(oo) of the Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - J S Narang - Full Document

Punjab State Tubewell Corporation ... vs Narayan Bahadur And Another on 20 April, 2011

Further in the case of The Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Rohtak and another, 2001(3) RSJ 247 the workman, by virtue of various orders of appointment on 89 days basis had completed 240 days of service in the last calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It has been observed that the termination of such employee by such order amounts to unfair labour practice.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punjab State Cooperative Milk ... vs The Presiding Officer on 31 May, 2011

Further in the case of The Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Rohtak and another, 2001(3) RSJ 247 the workman, by virtue of various orders of appointment on 89 days basis had completed 240 days of service in the last calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It has been observed that the termination of such employee by such order amounts to unfair labour practice.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

General Manager vs Harpreet Singh And Another on 3 June, 2011

Further in the case of The Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Rohtak and another, 2001(3) RSJ 247 the workman, by virtue of various orders of appointment on 89 days basis had completed 240 days of service in the last calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It has been observed that the termination of such employee by such order amounts to unfair labour practice.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Block And Development Officer And ... vs Nasib Singh And Anr. on 22 August, 2006

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;] A bare perusal of the said definition shows that the termination of a workman "for any reason whatsoever" would constitute retrenchment except in cases excepted in the abovesaid section itself. The petitioner-department has failed to prove if the case of the petitioner-workmen falls in any of the excepted categories. The termination of the services due to transfer of regular incumbents does not fall in any of the exceptions mentioned above. Therefore, this case falls within the term termination of the services "for any reason whatsoever". It would, thus, be retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act, referred to above. As said above, the workman had completed 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination and is thus, protected by provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Admittedly, there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act ibid. The petitioner-department cannot rub off an employee/workman by bye-passing the provisions of Act. The Labour Court, after having gone through all the aspects, has rightly concluded that the termination of services of the workman is illegal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - J S Narang - Full Document
1