Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (2.87 seconds)
Documents citing Kirloskar Brothers Ltd vs Employees' State Insurance Corpn on 24 January, 1996

M/S Kirloskar Brothers Limited vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 24 February, 2012

In the application it was District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 3 of 13 4 prayed that the appellant be directed to pay damages @ 255 per sq ft per month from 1/5/2010 onwards with interest, till the actual delivery of possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent. 3 Vide the impugned order the appellant was ordered to be evicted. It was also directed to pay the damages. 4 In respect of the order passed u/s 5 of the Act, an appeal which bears no. 42/11, was filed. The appeal bearing no. 43/11 is against the order vide which the appellant had been directed to pay the damages.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

& vs The Management Of Mrf Limited on 7 October, 2025

(24)The next judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation [1996 [2] SCC 682]. In the aforesaid case, the issue for consideration before the Apex Court was, whether the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, would apply to the Regional Offices of the appellant/Company at Secundrabad in Andhra Pradesh and Bangalore in Karnataka. In the context of the issue raised, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Act, were to be read, not only with reference to the 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 07:43:18 pm ) WP.No.38081/2025 objects of the Act, but also the Constitutional, Fundamental and human rights referred to therein. The said case, in the view of this Court, can aid the petitioner/Union only to the extent it declares health as a fundamental, human right.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K V Pavan Kumar vs M/O Labour on 16 January, 2019

In Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Employees State Insurance corporation, 1996 (2) SCC 682; "Para 9 " The expression 'life' assured in Article 21 does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the work place and leisure facilities and opportunities to eliminate sickness and physical disability of the workmen. Health of the workman enables him to enjoy the fruits of his labour, to keep him physically fit and human right to protect his health. In that case health insurance, while in service 11 OA.NO.170/00530/2017 CAT,Bangalore or after retirement was held to be a fundamental right and even private industries are enjoined to provide health insurance to the workmen."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next