Hope Textiles Ltd. Through Its ... vs Nemichand Etc.Etc. on 22 April, 2016
This Court in the case of Nemichand (supra) has held as
under :-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)The Management, Korakundah Estate, ... vs Smt. Sagunthala, The Controlloing ... on 21 February, 2002
9/ The above view is supported by the judgments relied
upon by the counsel for the respondent of the Madras High
Court in the matter of Management, Korakundah Estate,
Nilgiris Vs. Sagunthala (Smt) and others reported in
2004 LLR 222 and the Karnataka High Court in the matter of
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Central Office, Bangalore Vs. Dy. Labour Commissiner
and Appellate Authority under the P.G. Act,
Bangalore and Ors. reported in 2009 LLR 861, wherein the
period of continuous service rendered prior to the date of
amendment has been calculated applying the amended
provisions.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner And The ... on 7 January, 2008
9/ The above view is supported by the judgments relied
upon by the counsel for the respondent of the Madras High
Court in the matter of Management, Korakundah Estate,
Nilgiris Vs. Sagunthala (Smt) and others reported in
2004 LLR 222 and the Karnataka High Court in the matter of
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Central Office, Bangalore Vs. Dy. Labour Commissiner
and Appellate Authority under the P.G. Act,
Bangalore and Ors. reported in 2009 LLR 861, wherein the
period of continuous service rendered prior to the date of
amendment has been calculated applying the amended
provisions.
Lalappa Lingappa & Ors vs Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., ... on 11 February, 1981
10/ Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of
Lalappa Lingappa and others Vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile
Mills Ltd. reported in AIR 1981 SC 852, but the said
judgment is of no help to him since in the said judgment the
un-amended Section 2C defining the continuous service has
been examined. The said judgment may have necessitated
the amendment in the definition of continuous service in the
Act but on account of the said judgment it can not be held
that the amended provision will not apply to the service
rendered prior to the amendment.
Govinddas & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Income Tax Officer & Another on 18 December, 1975
Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Govinddas and others Vs.
The Income-Tax Officer and another reported in AIR
1977 SC 552 and in the matter of Bihar State Council of
Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine Vs. State of Bihar and
others reported in AIR 2008 SC 595 in support of his
submission relating to the prospective application of the
amended provision but those judgments relate to the
different nature of amendment in the Income Tax Act and
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, where the language of
the amendment was not similar to the one as in the present
case and the object of enactment was also different.
11/ Keeping in view the aforesaid, the objection of the
petitioner that the amended Section 2A of the Act will not
apply to the services rendered prior to the amendment, is
rejected. The Authorities under the Act have not committed
any error in calculating the continuous service rendered by
the employees concerned applying the amended provisions
as contained in Section 2A of the Act."
Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic And ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007
Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Govinddas and others Vs.
The Income-Tax Officer and another reported in AIR
1977 SC 552 and in the matter of Bihar State Council of
Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine Vs. State of Bihar and
others reported in AIR 2008 SC 595 in support of his
submission relating to the prospective application of the
amended provision but those judgments relate to the
different nature of amendment in the Income Tax Act and
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, where the language of
the amendment was not similar to the one as in the present
case and the object of enactment was also different.
11/ Keeping in view the aforesaid, the objection of the
petitioner that the amended Section 2A of the Act will not
apply to the services rendered prior to the amendment, is
rejected. The Authorities under the Act have not committed
any error in calculating the continuous service rendered by
the employees concerned applying the amended provisions
as contained in Section 2A of the Act."
1