Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.57 seconds)
Documents citing Nizamuddin Suleman vs New Shorrock Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd., ... on 24 November, 1978

Baroda Rayon Corpo. Ltd. vs Hanumansingh Jagnarayansingh on 29 November, 1979

In Nizamuddin v. New Shorrock Mills Ltd. 20 G.L.R. 290, a Full Bench of this Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 33C in the light of various decisions of the Supreme Court. In the context of Section 33C(2), the Full Bench observed that, so far as the workmen is concerned, he must proceed on the footing of an existing right; the existing right may be under the terms of the settlement or an award or the right may have been provided for either by custom or by law or by agreement, but there must be an existing right and so long as there is that existing right which is claimed by the workman, he can apply to the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) and the Labour Court will have jurisdiction to deal with the application on merits. The Full Bench further pointed out that Section 10 of the Act was wide enough to cover all industrial disputes including those which would fall under Section 33C(2). However, Section 33C(2) provides a sp2edier remedy for the recovery of the dues of a workman against his employer in certain specified type of cases and the basis is that there must be an existing right. In terms, it was observed Section 33C(2) is obviously not meant for creation of any new rights or fresh rights. All that it deals with is an existing right which, as we have observed above, may arise because of an adjudication in an earlier proceeding or which has been provided for either by custom or by law or by agreement.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Management, Eiko Computers Pvt. Ltd. vs C.K. Jeyachandran And Anr. on 1 February, 2006

9...Unless the rights of the parties are crystallised in the form of an award or order, no application under Section 33-C(2) would lid as they are in the nature of execution proceedings. For that, reliance was placed on decisions of Punjab Beverages Private Limited, Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand and Anr. and Full Bench decision of this Court in Nizammuddin Suleman v. New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Mills Company Limited, Nadiad 20 G.L.R. 290. In the above cases, it was held that an application under Section 33-C(2) would lie only after the rights of the parties are crystallised. In the instant case, an action was taken against the appellant but the said action was not challenged by taking any proceeding and the said action was not declared illegal or bad in law and directly an application under Section 33-C(2) was filed. Such application was, therefore, not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 43 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

Manager, Arvind Polycot Ltd vs Khumansinhl Paravinshing Vaghela on 6 October, 2023

In support of his contention in respect of the maintainability of the recovery applications, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala v. Davinder Kumar & Ors. [(2012) 10 SCC 280] and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Nizamuddin Suleman v. New Shorrock Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co.Ltd., Nadiad & Ors. [1979 (II) LLJ 36].
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Project Manager, Oil And Natural Gas ... vs Khemsingh Ramsingh on 25 June, 1985

14. As far as the present case is concerned, the truck drivers who are the respondents herein are entitled to particular scale of pay and scale of pay they enquire now is fixed only for the promotional post from truck drivers to that of Heavy Truck Drivers. In 1983 (1) G.L.R. 725, the agreement between the employer and employee is to the effect that the employee has to be paid according to the position he occupies and the function he discharged. The agreement in that case clearly envisages that the worker who does the particular work is entitled to the pay scale applicable to the particular type of work. As far as the present case is concerned, it is according to the cadre the pay scale is fixed and not according to the work done by the particular employee. It is the employee in the present case who to get the scale of pay fixed for the post he occupies and he cannot claim better scale than the scale for which he is entitled to. As we have referred already, both the Memorandum of Settlement and the circular passed on 8th May, 1968 by virtue of such Memorandum of Settlement make it clear that the truck driver who perform the duty of driving the heavy truck is entitled to get only Rs. 15/- as allowance per month. This allowance of Rs. 15/-, it is made clear by the evidence on record, is paid even to the Heavy Truck Drivers whenever they drive heavy trucks. Thus it is clear that the pay scale fixed by this department has relevance only to the cadre to which he belongs. The prayer by the respondents to get the pay scale of Heavy Truck Drivers, in our opinion, is a dispute which has to be decided by reference under S. 10(1) and cannot be settled by approaching the Labour Court under S. 33C(2). This is a case where a workman makes a claim for additional wages beyond his contract and such matters are beyond the powers vested in S. 33C(2).
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next