Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Haji Nadir Ali Khan And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 October, 1957

Ali Qadir vs Northern Railway on 16 February, 2024

5. Keeping in view the innocuous prayer made by the applicant, this O.A. is disposed of finally, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents/competent to consider and decide the representation filed by the applicant dated 02.08.2022, annexed as Annexure A-5 [page 20] to this OA, keeping in view, the discrepancies in the leave as per salary slip (Annexure A-4 to the OA) and the Leave Account cited by the respondents (Annexure CR-01 to Page 2 of 3 CAT Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00029/2023 Ali Qadir Vs U.O.I. & Ors the CA) and pass a reasoned and speaking order as per law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, under intimation forthwith to the applicant. The OA is disposed of accordingly.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 23 January, 2019

13. The Ld.Counsel for the applicant referred to the order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in OA.No.145/2010(Annexure- A13) in Nadir Ali vs. UOI wherein vide order dated 4.10.2013, the Tribunal referred to Rule 20 and 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and held that the applicant therein is entitled to get half of the services counted for the period rendered as casual worker prior to grant of temporary status.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jintan Clinical Thermometer Co. ... vs Union Of India And Anr. on 17 April, 1973

45. In Radhakrishnan Narayandas, a firm v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Indore and another, A.I.R. 1967 Madhya Pradesh 157, a similar situation arose. It was contented that the Act and the scheme could not be applied retrospectively to the petitioner's establishment in that case because there was no liability for the petitioner to pay any provident fund contribution of administrative charges for any period prior to the date on which the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the Act was applicable to his unit and made a demand for the dues. That argument was rejected. The learned Judges constituting a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that if the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner made a demand with effect from the date of the application of the Act or sometime thereafter, it could not be said that it was a retrospective demand.
Gujarat High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kapur Bhimber Union vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 30 September, 1964

The Bench affirmed the view expressed by my Lord Falshaw, J. (as he then was), against whose Judgment the appeal had been brought under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent which was disposed of by it. In a later case also in Haji Nadar Ali Khan v. Union of India my Lord Falshaw, J., upheld the order made by the Commissioner calling upon the employers in 1955 to deposit the contribution due as from 1 November 1952 in respect of the employees who had completed one year's service with the employers by that date. Naturally the Bench decision was followed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - A N Grover - Full Document

Hindustan Electric Co. Ltd. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 5 September, 1958

The fact that torch cases are produced by cutting, shaping and soldering brass and from sheets by means or machineries does not make them mechanical or electrical products. A contrary view however, has been taken by Falshaw, J. in Nadir Ali Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1958 Punj 177 (K). According to this decision although musical instruments, whether made of metal or otherwise, are not specifically mentioned in Schedule I, such products fall within the expression "electrical, mechanical or general engineering products."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 6 - A N Grover - Full Document

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ... vs Lakshmi Ratten Engineering Works, Ltd. on 2 February, 1962

(4) It was then contended that one of the factories owned by the Hindustan Electric Company, when owned by Government, was used only for the manufacturing of ordinary stoves for domestic use which was not a scheduled industry, and the present factory used for the manufacture of motor parts come into being only after the purchase from Government, and on this ground, too, the factory had not, within the meaning of section 16 of the Act, been in existence for more than three years. This argument, too, found no favour with Grover, J., and he held that even when owned by Government the business of manufacturing stoves was a scheduled industry and was covered by the expression "electrical, mechanical or general engineering" mentioned in Schedule I of the Act. The learned Judge, therefore, repelled the contention, and he relied again on another decision by Falshaw, J., in this Court, Nadir Ali Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1958 Punj 177.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - I D Dua - Full Document

Gulshan Khandsari Udyog vs Union Of India (Uoi), New Delhi Through ... on 30 January, 1968

The Division Bench of the Punjab High Court, (1986) I Lab LJ 870 (Punj) relied upon another Bench decision of that Court as also on Nadir Ali Khan's case, AIR 1958 Punj 177 (supra). It duly considered the 1959 case of the Calcutta High Court, (1959) 1 Lab LJ 249= (AIR 1958 Cal 570) and the 1963 case of the Madras High Court. (1963) 1 Lab LJ 23= (AIR 1963 Mad 112) referred to earlier, but did not agree with their opinion. The Bench, however, approved the view of this Court taken by J. Sahai, J. in AIR 1958 All 474 and held that the contribution to the provident fund had to be made initially by the employer on' his own behalf as also on behalf of the employees, the share of the employees being realisable from out of their wages later on. It was pointed out that the Calcutta decision (AIR 1958 Cal 570) cannot be taken to be an authority for the view that the Commissioner could not call upon the employers to deposit contribution with regard to the period called the pre-discovery period, because in that case the company concerned had formulated its own provident fund scheme which had been in operation for the past several years, within which time some of the employees had already left the service after taking their provident fund accumulation. It was further pointed out that the Madras view expressed in 1963 (following the Calcutta decision) had since been dissented from by Srinivasan, J. of that very Court, who held that there was no provision which postponed the application of the Act and the Scheme to the stage of demand being made by the authorities concerned.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next