Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Escorts Limited vs The Industrial Tribunal, Delhi And Anr. on 28 January, 1970

The Staff Superintendent Of State Bank ... vs The Presiding Officer And Ors. on 14 August, 1984

(58) Though I might have been inclined to lean towards the more liberal approach of applying the principles of natural Justice recently expressed in the decisions of the Madras Karnataka, Calcutta and Punjab & Haryana High Courts in G. Muthukrishnan Vs. Administrative Manager New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., Pondicherry and other 1980(1) Llj 215, "Indian Telephones Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & others" 1978 (1) Llj 544, "American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Union of India and others" 1979 (II) Llj 22(33) and M|s. Escorts Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana & others" 1983 Lab.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Col. Kuldip Singh Dhillon And Ors. vs Paragaon Utility Financiers (P.) Ltd. ... on 8 May, 1984

12. Faced with that situation, Mr. Sodhi argued that the requisitionists stated on affidavit that they did not come to know about the resolution nor did they receive any letter dated November 20, 1981 and, therefore, it cannot be held that they came to know of the resolution. He tried to support his argument by making a reference to this court's decision in Escorts Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana [1983] Lab 1C 223. I am not impressed with the, submission of learned counsel. In view of the provisions of the Companies Act, it cannot be held that the mode in which the service was effected was not a proper mode of service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Council Of Applied Economic ... vs Delhi Administration And Others on 13 December, 1985

6. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Escorts' (supra) case inter alia came to the conclusion that the rule of audi alteram partem is attracted to the exercise of power a second time under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act while referring the matter for adjudication after the same had been rejected earlier. The reasoning for this conclusion being that though an earlier rejection does not give a vested right to the employer to have the issue finally closed and no considerations of res judicata can arise in such a situation, the whole gamut of the industrial relation between the employer and the workman would remain in a continuous flux if despite an earlier rejection of a reference of an industrial dispute the same is reopened with impunity either independently or at the behest of the workman without any notice and behind the back of the employer. It was further held that grave and sometimes penal civil consequences may well ensue and thus principles of natural justice would inevitably be attracted in not only re-opening a rejected claim but referring it afresh for adjudication. The Punjab and Haryana High Court further opined that on reading of S. 10(1) Along with its authoritative construction it would follow that the earlier rejection of a claim to a reference of an industrial dispute has to be for indicated and recorded reasons and thus wherever an administrative order requires reasons to be give it would be a factor in favor of the right of the parties to be heard before such a considered order is reversed so as to enable them to bring before the authorities all the considerations for supporting or reversing the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Workmen Of Kempt (1) Ltd. (Represented ... vs Government Of Tamil Nadu (Represented ... on 21 December, 1990

20. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court also, in Escorts Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad 1983 I L.L.N. 688, after considering a number of authorities of the Apex Court, including the judgments in Maneka Gandhis case , (vide supra), and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner , rejected an argument raised before the Bench to the effect that reviewing and recalling of an earlier order rejecting a reference in favour of the employer would not entail any civil consequences. The Bench opined that though the earlier rejection did not create any vested right in the employer to have the issue finally closed and, therefore, no consideration of res judicata could possibly arise, nevertheless in view of the adverse consequences which may well ensue by reference of the dispute, which had earlier been rejected, the party would be entitled to be heard "before it is reopened."
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Huda vs Niranjan Singh on 30 October, 2014

The object of Section 42 deals with the service of notice to the allottee about any notice, order or other document and in case the registered letter sent to a person is received back undelivered, provision of Section 42(1)(d)(iii) will automatically come in operation. In the present case though the notice was sent through registered post to the allottee but it was never delivered and was returned back to the sender with the remarks "bidder is out of station and not known when he will come back". Once such report has come to the notice of the appellant HUDA, the authority was required to invoke the procedure as laid down in Section 42 VIJAY ASIJA 2014.11.05 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1266 of 2001 -11- (1)(d)(iii) and such notice should have been affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business. By not adhering to this provision, the HUDA has failed to comply the requirement of Section 42(1)(d)(iii). Thus, I held that no proper notice was sent to the allottee.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - H P Verma - Full Document

U.P. State Electricity Board And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 5 December, 1996

His reference to the decision in the case of Management of Theatre Sanjaya v. The State and Ors., (1984-II-LLJ- 400) rendered by Full Bench of Karnataka High Court; G. Muthukrishnan v. New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., Pondicherry and Ors., (1980-I-LLJ-215) rendered by Full Bench Madras; and Escorts Limited v. Industrial Tribunal Haryana, Faridabad and Ors., 1983 Lab I.C. 223 rendered by Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court cannot be of any assistance.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - D K Seth - Full Document

Devender Singh vs Association Of State Road Transport ... on 3 December, 2024

In Escorts Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, an industrial dispute relating to termination of services of Respondent was raised. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and the Labour Court, holding that "since the termination was in accordance with the terms of the contract though before the expiry of the period of probation it fell within the ambit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and did not constitute retrenchment. Since the services of the workmen were terminated as per the terms of the contract of employment, it does not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and the Labour Court was in error in holding that it constituted retrenchment and was protected by Section 25-F of the Act"."
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Hamco Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 27 February, 1991

8. The contention that the petitioner Company was entitled to an opportunity before the second reference could be made vide Annexure, P/3 has been argued at length. For this reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Escorts Limited, Faridabad v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, 1983 Lab. I. C. 223. In this case S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. speaking for the bench examined in depth as to the applicability of the rule audi alteram partem to the exercise of power under Section 10(1) of the Act when this power is exercised for the second time, after the exercise of the same has been declined earlier.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next