Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.57 seconds)The West Bengal Payment Of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969
Raibahadur Bissessurlal Motilal ... vs Presiding Officer/Judge, First ... on 10 May, 1999
11. For the reasons aforementioned we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge went wrong in passing the impugned order. For the reasons aforementioned the appeal is allowed subject to the modification that as regards the direction of the learned Tribunal that it would proceed ex parte, may be considered afresh having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of this Court in Raibahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Haluwasiya Trust and Anr. v. Presiding Officer/ Judge, First Industrial Tribunal, reported in 2000-I-LLJ-104 (Cal-DB).
Sampat B.G. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 14 October, 1999
9. This very fact that the learned Trial Judge directed the appellant/workman to file an affidavit giving an undertaking that he would refund the same in case he loses the disputes before the Industrial Tribunal gives a clear indication as to the mind-set of the learned Trial Judge. Section 15(2)(b) of the said Act was enacted with a salutary purpose. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in B. G. Sampat v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2000-I-LLJ-565 (Cal-FB), wherein it was held that interim relief granted would not be refundable. It was observed as follows at p. 570:
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Ramendra Nath Nandi And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 30 April, 1975
15. This judgment will govern in APO 342 of 2000 (Rabindra Nath Bose v. State of West Bengal and Ors.), APO No. 341 of 2000 (Sri Premankur Roy v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) and APO No. 343 of 2000 (ManasRanjan Dutta v. State of West Bengal and Ors.).
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
"28. The intention of the Legislature is further clear from the fact that in terms of the proviso appended to Section 15(2)(b) interim relief in certain categories of cases would be equivalent to the subsistence allowance as may be admissible under the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969. The provisions of the said Act have been incorporated by reference with regard to the quantum of allowance only but the said provision leads to a conclusion that in a case where an interim relief is granted, no direction can be issued to refund thereof as subsistence allowance can never be directed to be refunded. The reason why a subsistence allowance is granted has succinctly been stated by the Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., ".
1