Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing The Management Of Haryana Urban ... vs Miss Neelam Kumari And Anr. on 4 June, 1993

Between The vs The on 4 October, 2021

"3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt there is no limitation provided under the Industrial Disputes Act to raise an industrial dispute but can it be said that it can be raised at any time and that too without any application. Is a workman at a better footing or at a higher pedestal than a civil servant or an employee of any other organisation? If the services of an employee of the latter category are dispensed with they are required to challenge the same in the Civil Court within a period of three years. Even for writ petition the Supreme court has observed that three years is a reasonable period within which the aggrieved party must approach to challenge termination as that is the period for filing a civil suit. According to us, the workman cannot be allowed to approach the Labour Court after more than three years of the termination of service. We find support from the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent workman also cited Prem Singh V. Labour Commissioner, Punjab, (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 354 ; Management of Haryana Development Authority Vs. Miss.
Delhi District Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Sh. Kali Dass And Anr. on 27 November, 1996

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt there is no limitation provided under the Industrial Disputes Act to raise an industrial dispute but can it be said that it can be raised at any time and that too without any application. Is a workman at a better footing or at a higher pedestal than a civil servant or an employee of any other organisation? If the services of an employee of the latter category are dispensed with they are required to challenge the same in the Civil Court within a period of three years. Even for writ petition the Supreme court has observed that three years is a reasonable period within which the aggrieved party must approach to challenge termination as that is the period for filing a civil suit. According to us, the workman cannot be allowed to approach the Labour Court after more than three years of the termination of service. We find support from the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent workman also cited Prem Singh v. Labour Commissioner, Punjab, (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 354 ; Management of Haryana Development Authority v. Miss Neelam Kumari and Anr., 1993(5) Services Law Reporter 134; Mani Ram v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Ors., (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 39 and Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, 1993(2) Service Cases Today 169. From these authorities, we find that not only that the moot point as raised in the authorities relied upon by the counsel for the respondent-workman was in issue but those were decided on the peculiar facts of those cases. There is a detailed discussion on the point in issue in all the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner with which we are in respectful agreement. The respondent-workman in the present case has chosen not to raise his little finger for a period of more than 7-1/2 years when he thought of just issue a demand notice. For such a long time, the petitioner-management is even not supposed to keep all the record concerning its workmen. It becomes really difficult to defend such a cases. The suit, if it had to be filed by the workman before a civil Court, would have been hopelessly time-barred. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the respondent-workman was not entitled to any relief from the Labour Court on the ground of delay. The management has been unnecessarily burdened with the re-instatement of the workman and also the back wages from the year 1991.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 65 - N C Khichi - Full Document

Gurvinder Singh Rana vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 3 April, 1998

8. As regards the delay in making of the reference, the explanation forthcoming, is that because the appeal was pending, therefore, the petitioner could not make the reference on an earlier occasion. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner is being placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of The Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and Anr., 1990(5) Services Law Reporter 509; The Management of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Miss.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document

Punjab Police Housing Corporation ... vs Unknown on 5 December, 2011

In Management of Haryana Urban Development Authority v Neelam Kumari, 1993 [4] SCT, 676, a Division Bench of this Court held the HUDA - a statutory authority an industry. [16]. Following the cited decisions and keeping in view the nature of functions assigned to the petitioner Corporation, I have no reason to doubt that the petitioner fulfils the ingredients of an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2[j] of the 1947 Act even if there is no profit-motive behind its activities.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document

Punjab Urban Planning & Development ... vs Rachhpal Kaur on 28 March, 2012

This order will dispose of three appeals, namely, First Appeal No.457 of 2007 (Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority v. Rachhpal Kaur), First Appeal No.458 of 2007 (Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority v. Neelam Kumari) and First Appeal No.459 of 2007 (Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority v. Kanwarjyot Singh) as the questions of law and facts involved in all these appeals are identical. Facts are taken from F.A. No.457 of 2007 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal. VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1