Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.53 seconds)
Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board ... vs Ketanbhai Dinkarray Pandya on 9 May, 2000 cites

Naranji Peraji Transport Co. vs Ramnikbhai B. Waghela on 12 December, 1997

(1) Naranji Peraji Transport Co. v. Ramnikbhai B. Vaghela, 1998 (2) GLR 984 (2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Am. JT 1994 (7) SC 476 (3) Chief Superintendent, Government Livestock Farm, Hissar v. Ramesh Kumar, 1998 SCC (L & S) 150 (4) Tara & Ors. v. Director, Social Welfare & Ors., 1998 (2) LLJ 632 (5) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. R. L. Khandelwal, 1968 (38) Comp.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Patel Iswaerbhai Prahldbhai Etc. Etc vs Taluka Development Officer & Others on 28 January, 1983

In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Paid Ishwarbhai (supra) as also the decision in case of Tubewell Operator Working in the Panchayat (supra), the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are applicable and attracted and it is held the said Act is applicable to the other Authorities being a Scheduled Employment. Therefore, taking into consideration these facts, the labour Court has jurisdiction to decide the claim of over-time wages of the respondents-workmen while exercising the powers and jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The labour Court has also power to decide and determine the incidental question if the employer has disputed the claim of the workman. Therefore, the labour Court has not committed any error while entertaining and examining the claim of over-time wages under the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act. The claim of overtime wages is not a new right which would require adjudication. On the contrary, it is a recognized, existing, contractual and statutory right based on the service conditions which can be claimed under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act against the employer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - A Varadarajan - Full Document

Anand Oil Industries vs Labour Court, Hyderabad And Ors. on 28 December, 1978

In case of Anand Oil Industries v. Labour Court, Hyderabad, reported in AIR 1979 AP 182 (FB), it has been held by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the claim for minimum bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, being an existing statutory right, can be tried under Section 33C(2) by the Court. Such a claim cannot constitute an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act. It is, therefore, not necessary that it should be referred for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal. The labour Court can entertain such a claim under Section 33C(2) and can determine the amount due.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 86 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1