Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing K. Rama Rao vs Chief Executive, Nellimarla Jute Mills ... on 13 July, 1992

General Industrial Society Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour ... on 16 January, 1996

To the same effect is the decision reported in K. Rama Rao v. The Chief Executive (Mills), Nellio maria Jute Mills and others (supra) wherein it has been further held that there is no period of limitation for challenging the order of dismissal before the forum constituted under the I.D. Act and the delay in challenging the order of termination can be taken into consideration for moulding the relief and that in appropriate cases, the court may disallow back-wages from the date of illegal termination till the date of filing of the petition.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.P. Dairy Development Co.Op. ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 7 September, 2007

Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and marked Exs.W1 to W14. On behalf of the Management, M.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M1 to M9 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent-workman had put in more than 240 days of service preceding the date of his termination and the petitioner-Management had violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Further, while considering the decisions reported in M.M. Baig v. APSRTC , K. Rama Rao v. Chief Executive (Mills), Nellimarla Jute Mills and N.P. Subrahmanyam v. Managing Director , it was held that the delay of 18 years in approaching the Labour Court by the workman could not have mattered much and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3.00 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Management Of Secales Limited, Rep. By ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 8 April, 2004

In K, Rama Rao v. Chief Executive, N.J. Mills (supra), it was held that Section 2-A(ii) can be invoked even with regard to dismissal prior to that date. There, of course, the learned Judge was referring to the AP Act but the reasoning is the same. The learned. Judge observed that there is nothing in the language of Section 2-A(ii) to exclude the workmen's right to approach the Labour Court even in respect of the orders of dismissal etc. passed prior to the amendment Act. This legal position was also not seriously challenged by the Management. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the apprentices for these reasons, namely, the retrospective operation of the Section and laches cannot be sustained.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P Sridevan - Full Document
1