Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Madhya Pradesh, State Road Transport ... vs Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, ... on 22 July, 1970

State Of M.P. vs Barilal @ Munna Badai And Anr. on 14 August, 1991

As the law is clear and settled by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works v. Its employees (supra) and G. T. Lad and Ors. v. Chemicals and Fibres India, Ltd. (supra) and by this Court in two Division Bench decisions in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, Indore(supra) and Ramprasad Bhikaram v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal (supra), we do not consider it proper to refer the case to larger Bench. We simply have explained and made it clear what has been said and laid down by the Supreme Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs R. K. Jain & Ors on 17 September, 1971

A contrary view has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh (2) . A Division Bench of the said High Court has held that it is. a healthy practice, that after coming to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not proper, the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court should give an opportunity to the employer Lo produce evidence to satisfy the authority that the action taken by it is justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 76 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Sri Rajavarma Ballal vs The Regional Transport Authority on 4 March, 2025

23. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Corporation, Constitution bench of the Apex Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal case supra has held that contention that whenever there is a permanent need, there cannot be a temporary need is an erroneous view. The Apex Court has held that both temporary need and permanent need may co-exist.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Narayan P M vs The Regional Transport Authority on 4 March, 2025

23. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Corporation, Constitution bench of the Apex Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal case supra has held that contention that whenever there is a permanent need, there cannot be a temporary need is an erroneous view. The Apex Court has held that both temporary need and permanent need may co-exist.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh Tara Dutt Upadhyaya vs M/S Exl Service Com (India) Pvt. Ltd on 2 November, 2019

In view of the said admission, following judgments relied upon by the management i.e. (i) Braham Parkash Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. in writ petition (C) No.6105/2007; (ii) M/s D.L.F. Universal Ltd. Vs. The Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi & Others cited as 2002 LLR 407; (iii) The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. The Industrial Court, M.P., Indore - M.P. No. 3605/1986, dated February 1, 1995); (iv) Sh. Harsaran Singh Vs. The Managing Director, M/s Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. in WP(C) NO.710/2009 decided on 14.07.2009; and (v) M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors in WP(C) No.7050/2008 decided on 14.07.2009, which deals with this very kind of situation and thereby laying down the principle of law that in such a situation only the courts where the situs of employment was there, can have the jurisdiction to entertain such dispute, present issue is decided in favour of the management holding that the reference so made by the concerned authority of Dehi Govt. is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction and as a consequence Delhi courts also do ID No. 5289­16 6/7 not have any jurisdiction to entertain the petition based on said reference.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Marqus vs Also At:­ on 24 September, 2022

2. Reference in this case was received on 09.08.2017. Notice of Reference was issued to Workman and after service of notice, Statement of Claim was filed by him on 11.05.2018. Thereafter, notice of Statement of Claim was sent to Management and after service of notice, Written Statement was filed by the Management on 04.05.2019. Thereafter, Replication to Written Statement was filed by LIR No.2344/2017 Rakesh Marqus Vs. M/s. Global Cancer Concern India Page 3 of 6 the Workman on 23.10.2019. As the Management had raised objection in its Written Statement regarding territorial jurisdiction, so, following preliminary issue was framed vide order dated 23.10.2019:­ "1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition as the Workman's last working place was at Gurgaon, in view of the judgments titled as (i) Braham Prakash Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. in Writ Petition (C) No.6105/2007; (ii) M/s. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. Vs. The Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi & Ors. cited as 2002 LLR 407; (iii) The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. The Industrial Court, M.P., Indore - M.P. No.3605/1986, dated February 1, 1995); (iv) Sh. Harsaran Singh Vs. The Managing Director, M/s. Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. in WP (C) No.710/2019 decided on 14.07.2009; and (v) M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP (C) No.7050/2008 decided on 14.07.2009, which LIR No.2344/2017 Rakesh Marqus Vs. M/s. Global Cancer Concern India Page 4 of 6 deals with this very kind of situation and thereby laying down the principle of law that in such a situation only the Courts where the situs of employment was there, can have the jurisdiction to entertain such dispute."
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Limited vs Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 3 December, 1979

In this connection, the learned Counsel referred to us the decisions of the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Delhi, In Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh (1970) 40 F.J.R. 448, a Division Bench of the said High Court has held that it is a healthy practice that after coming to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not proper, the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court should give an opportunity to the employer to produce evidence to satisfy the authority that the action taken by it is justified.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next