Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.64 seconds)
St Johns School & Anr vs Asha Bhan on 19 July, 2012 cites

Executive Committee Of Vaish Degree ... vs Lakshmi Narain And Ors on 12 December, 1975

9. It was held by the Supreme Court in Vaish Degree College, Shamli & Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. AIR 1976 SC 888 that a contract for personal service cannot be specifically enforced and a court normally would not give a declaration that the contract subsists and such an employee even after having been removed from service cannot be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule is subject to three well-recognised exceptions:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 471 - S M Ali - Full Document

S.P. Bhatnagar vs Indian Oil Corporation on 12 July, 1994

In S.P.Bhatnagar v. Indian Oil Corporation 1994 III AD(Delhi) 898, the appellant was placed under suspension and was dismissed from service on the basis of finding recorded in a departmental inquiry held against him. A suit was filed by him challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement or in the alternative Rs.50,000/- as damages for wrongful dismissal. The learned Additional District Judge awarded a sum of Rs.2250/- to him as damages. He filed an appeal before this Court and during the pendency of the appeal he filed an application for additional evidence enhancing his claim for damages from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,32,750/-. The application was however, dismissed. The Division Bench RFA 446/2003 Page 20 of 25 which disposed of the appeal held that the inquiry held against the plaintiff was bad in law and the finding arrived at therein was perverse based on no evidence. It was held that he was entitled to declaration that he continued in service till he attained the age of superannuation on 28th July 1994 and to full back-wages and other benefits from the date of dismissal. The Court directed the defendant to compute them along with all retirement benefits including pension etc. A decree in those terms was passed accordingly. In an appeal filed by the respondent, it was agreed that the plaintiff was not entitled to reinstatement but was entitled to get damages on the ground of wrongful dismissal in view of the fact that he had already attained the age of superannuation. Supreme Court directed the parties to lead evidence, to determine quantum of damages. After remand by Supreme Court the plaintiff sought a decree for Rs.71,46,268/-. The Division Bench noted that as per the reply affidavit of the defendant/respondent the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.605142.27 towards pay and allowance. This figure was arrived at on the basis of the revised pay on account of revision of the pay scales firstly on 1.8.1974 and then on 1.8.1882. The aforesaid amount was awarded by this Court to the plaintiff as damages. His claim for compensation for harassment and mental torture was negated by this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - D K Jain - Full Document

P.G.I.Of M.E. & Research, Chandigarh vs Raj Kumar on 2 November, 2000

"Payment of back-wages having a discretionary element involved in it has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back-wages in its entirely. As regards the decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. be it noted that though broad guidelines, as regards payment of back-wages, have been laid down by this Court but having regard to the peculiar facts of the matter, this Court directed payment of 75% back- wages only."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 139 - U C Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next