Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.37 seconds)
Block Development Officer Panc vs The Judge Labour Court Bharatp on 4 July, 2019 cites

Gamon India Limited vs Niranjan Dass on 5 December, 1983

Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Award dated 6.4.1994 was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court in S.B.C.W.P. No.3140/1991 wherein the High Court vacated the stay on 7.8.1995. After vacation of the stay, the Committee took a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner treating him as a daily wager and issued a notice on 28.11.1995 which has been challenged by way of the reference. The learned labour Court has thus, reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has not complied with the earlier Award and the respondent-workman, therefore, was entitled to receive the notice pay in terms of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Learned labour Court has also noticed that a sum of Rs. 27,985/- was paid to the workman by the petitioner by cheque vide letter dated 1.4.1999 during the pendency of the dispute before the labour Court thus, the amount (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 09:23:04 PM) (3 of 6) [CW-7359/2005] was not paid alongwith the notice or on completion thereof and, therefore, the labour Court has followed the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 500- Gammon India Limited Vs. Niranjan Dass and judgment reported in 1994(1) WLC 523- Radha Krishan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 157 - D A Desai - Full Document

R.S.R.T.C. vs Judge, Labour Court on 3 February, 1987

This Court in 1984 RLR 981- R.S.R.T.C. V. Judge, Labour Court after making detailed discussions of the provisions of Section 25-F(a) and (b) as well as Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 are mandatory and if the two conditions enumerated in Section 25-F(a) and (d) are not fulfilled on or before or at the time of retrenchment, the retrenchment will have to be treated as non- est, void, ab-initio and nullity and the workman would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity in service.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Radha Kishan Meena S/O Santram Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 April, 2019

"3. It is not disputed that the pre-requisite for a valid retrenchment as laid down in Sec. 25f has not been complied with and therefore the retrenchment bringing about termination of service is ab initio void. Viewed from this angle, the award of the Industrial Tribunal was correct and unassailable and the learned Single Judge was in error in interfering with the same. Undoubtedly, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the award for reasons of its own. However, for the reasons herein indicated, the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 25 of 1970 is upheld and confirmed and this appeal must therefore fail and accordingly it is dismissed."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1