Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.64 seconds)

Parties Name vs Sanjay Rana And Another on 3 December, 2010

The appellant came to this Court to impugn the above order. It is case of the appellant that Sundays, Saturdays and holidays on which wages were not paid to the workman should not have been included in calculating the requisite period of 240 actual working days to give him benefit under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. At the time of final hearing, one of us (Justice K.Kannan) noticed that in the case of Sunder Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board , Patiala, and others, 2005 (II) L.LJ. 128, a Division Bench of this Court observed that for a workman, ( a daily wager), who was not paid for Sundays and other holidays either under an express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of a Statute, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15278 OF 2000 standing orders etc.(i.e. when there was no obligation on the part of the employer to pay wages for the days workman had not worked), those days could not be counted in 240 actual working days, to get benefit under Section 25-F of the Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Ram Gopal vs The Presiding Officer on 11 October, 2012

In Sunder Dass vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others, 2005 (II) LLJ 128, a Division Bench of this Court took the view that for a workman (a daily wager), who was not paid for Sundays and other holidays either under an express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of a Statute, standing orders etc., those days could not be counted in 240 actual working days, to get benefit under Section 25-F of the Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S K Mittal - Full Document
1