Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 101 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing Deputy Executive Engineer vs Kuberbhai Kanjibhai on 7 January, 2019

Kalotara Jagdishbhai Alias Jaga ... vs Gujarat Sheep And Wool Development ... on 2 July, 2021

21. On perusal of the impugned award, it clearly transpires that in view of the evidence on record, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was a breach of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and non-payment of notice pay or retrenchment allowance, and the work was still going on. However, considering the delay in filing the reference it has not allowed the prayer of reinstatement and full back wages and granted only lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/-. In view of the oral evidence of the employer's witness, after termination of the service of the Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 20:21:59 IST 2022 C/SCA/4415/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021 workman, the work is still going on and he was never called for and the work has been taken through the other daily wagers. In view of the oral evidence of the employer side, there is a breach of not only Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, but there is also a breach of Section 25-G and H of the I.D. Act, therefore, the order of reinstatement was required to be passed. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the workman has hardly work for one and half years and considering the fact that he has filed reference after almost eight years after his termination, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (supra) which has been referred to recently by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai, AIR 2019 SC 517, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error of facts and law in awarding lump sum compensation. Further, since, the workman has served only 1½ years, the amount awarded by the Labour Court is just and proper.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Kalotara Jagdishbhai Alias Jaga ... vs Gujarat Sheep And Wool Development ... on 2 July, 2021

21. On perusal of the impugned award, it clearly transpires that in view of the evidence on record, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was a breach of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and non-payment of notice pay or retrenchment allowance, and the work was still going on. However, considering the delay in filing the reference it has not allowed the prayer of reinstatement and full back wages and granted only lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/-. In view of the oral evidence of the employer's witness, after termination of the service of the Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 04 00:20:46 IST 2021 C/SCA/4415/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021 workman, the work is still going on and he was never called for and the work has been taken through the other daily wagers. In view of the oral evidence of the employer side, there is a breach of not only Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, but there is also a breach of Section 25-G and H of the I.D. Act, therefore, the order of reinstatement was required to be passed. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the workman has hardly work for one and half years and considering the fact that he has filed reference after almost eight years after his termination, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (supra) which has been referred to recently by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai, AIR 2019 SC 517, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error of facts and law in awarding lump sum compensation. Further, since, the workman has served only 1½ years, the amount awarded by the Labour Court is just and proper.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Rambhuwan Patel vs President on 14 March, 2024

In order to seek diversions from a normal rule on the basis of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in BSNL Vs. Bhurumal (supra) and Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (supra), 34 the respondent/establishment has to show that the action of the management while terminating the service of the petitioner was on account of justifiable grounds as enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tapash Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL (supra).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs The Presiding Officer Labour Court And ... on 3 January, 2020

v. Digambara Rao (supra), State of Uttaranchal vs. Prantiya Sinchai Avam Bandh Yogana Shramik Mahaparishad (supra), Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (supra) and Deputy Executive Engineer vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (supra), in support of his contention that in view of these consistent authorities, it is not open to the Courts to order regularization of a daily-wager or a temporary hand, not part of the regular establishment as that is the function of the Employers. Also, these authorities hold that regularization to a post under the State or the Union, cannot be done without following rules regarding recruitment involving advertisement, inviting applications from the Employment Exchange and other eligible candidates, and then a selection through the prescribed mode of test, interview etc. Any other course would violate the guarantee to all citizens of equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the State, enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution.
Allahabad High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Andhra Bank vs Dil Bahadur on 19 December, 2019

20. At this stage, it may also be apposite to notice some recent decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand Vs. Raj Kumar (supra), Regional Manager Vs. Dinesh Singh [C.A.No.3197/2019] and Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (supra). The Apex Court, while dealing with the case of daily wagers or muster roll employees, who were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act had awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the workman.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - R Palli - Full Document

M/S. Gulab Rai And Company (Erstwhile) vs Bala Ram S/O Shri Ram Chandra Ji Jaat on 20 October, 2021

We are not impressed by learned counsel for the appellant in so far as the liability fastened on the employers is concerned in view of the principle or determination of compensation as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai: (2019) 4 SCC 307, which has been referred to and relied upon in the order passed by learned Single Judge to arrive at the conclusion and pass the order under challenge.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Keshav Prasad Shrivas vs D.E.T. R.E. Project on 26 August, 2022

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that in case of State of Uttarakhand and another Vs. Raj Kumar (supra), so also in case of Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (supra), Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs.1 lakh after noting a fact that claimant had worked for few years, whereas, fact of the present case that claimant had hardly worked for 14 months and there was inordinate delay in filing the claim case and, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, with a view to balance equity, this petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand) against a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), Signature Not Verified SAN awarded by learned Labour Court. The petitioner will not be entitled to any Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.29 19:33:03 IST other reliefs and this amount of 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) will carry 3 interest as has been awarded by the learned Labour Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next