Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Viney Kumar Majoo vs State And Ors. on 2 February, 1968

Uoi vs Raju Kumar Shah on 20 January, 2020

20. Regarding issue No.(4), i.e. as to whether the respondents fulfilled the requirement of continuous service of 240 days, or more, in the period of one year preceding their date of disengagement, the learned Tribunal has initially placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in Viney Kumar Majoo v. State11, observing that the said decision held that 11 1968 SCC OnLine Raj 5 WP (C) 3495/2015 & other connected matters Page 12 of 71 the aforesaid period of one year furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days, then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the ID Act. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal holds, it was required to examine whether the respondents had, during the period of twelve months, immediately preceding their days of disengagement, "actually worked" with, or for, the petitioner for 240 days, or more.
Delhi High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Mahesh Chandra Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan An Anr. on 5 April, 1974

28. However, leraned Counsel for the petitioner argued in this respect that as this Court decided in Viney Kumar Majoo's case 1968 RLW 325 that the retrenchment of the petitioner in that case was invalid because of the non-compliance of the conditions envisaged in Section 25F of the Act, petitioner hoped that the respondents would retrace their steps and would re call the impugned order of termination of bis services, which was similar to that passed in Viney Kumar Majoo's case 1968 RLW 325 and it was in this expectation that the petitioner waited, but as the respondents did not set aside his retrenchment he had to approach this Court. In my view if the petitioner did not join the post of a work-charged Engineering Subordinate offered to him by the respondents it cannot be inferred therefrom that the petitioner has waived or that he is estopped from challenging the impugned order of termination of his service. On the other hand, from the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner it appears that he was firm in his stand that the injustice done to bin, on account of the order of termination of his services should be rectified. Moreover, it has hot been disclosed by the respondents as to for what period (he post of work charged supervisor offered to the petitioner by them was going to last in as much as it was a temporary assignment relating to Famine Relief Works and for ought one knows, might be of a very short duration. The petitioner's grievance could not have been satisfied by such an offer.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 33 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Dipak Virambhai Parmar on 30 July, 2014

In case of  Viney Kumar Majoo v. State and others  reported in AIR 1968 Rajasthan 227, it was observed that  the avowed object of the amendment of section 25B made  by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act (36 of 1964) was  to confer certain benefits on the workmen and this being a  beneficent piece of legislation has to be so construed as to  advance   the   underlying   object   of   conferring   benefits   on  workmen   and   it   should   not   be   so   construed   as   to   deny  such benefits.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document
1