Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Krishnaveni Textile Mills vs The Asst. Labour Commissioner on 22 July, 2002

P. Selvaraj vs The Management Of Shardlow India ... on 10 October, 2006

6. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Payment of Gratuity Act being a beneficial legislation, the provisions are to be interpreted for the benefit of the employee. The learned Counsel further submitted that the rate of wages means one day's wage and not the wages of the last month and hence the management ought to have taken the wages payable for the month of July. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that for the alleged period of strike, no notice was served upon the Petitioner and the Management arbitrarily said there was break in service and when the factum of illegal strike has not been established, the authorities have committed error of law in not considering the same. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a number of decisions. Placing reliance upon 2002 [4] LLN 363, [Krishnaveni Textile Mills v. Asst. Commissioner [Central] and Ors.], the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no materials are placed for proving that the strike had been treated as break in service.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1