Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 April, 1995
He relies on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kamleshkumar I. Patel v. Union of India in support of this submission.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
He then submits that the law in respect of awarding backwages as it was laid down earlier would govern the present case. The trend of shifting the onus on the workman to prove his case for payment of backwages has started very recently, according to the learned advocate. The present case would not be governed by these judgments. He submits that the case of the Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Its employees reported in 1978(11) L.L.J. 474, was decided by a Bench of two Judges and the same issue was answered by a majority in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha reported in 1980(1) L.L.J. 137.
J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007
He then submits that it is not in every case that the workman must be denied backwages as held by the Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and Anr. reported in 2007(1) C.L.R. 670.
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Udai Narain Pandey on 8 December, 2005
According to the learned advocate, the judgment of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra) should be preferred over the judgment in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey and other recent judgments in relation to awarding backwages. He submits that, when there is a conflict of decisions of the Supreme Court of co-ordinate Benches of equal strength, the High Court must decide for itself which judgment should be followed, based on the consideration of law on the point. He submits that the later judgment need not necessarily be followed in preference to the earlier one.
General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs Rudhan Singh on 14 July, 2005
Manager, Haryana Roadways (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that while awarding backwages it is not a rule of thumb that in every case the Tribunal finds that there is a violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act that full backwages must be awarded. The Supreme Court has held that payment of backwages should be decided on a host of factors including the nature of appointment, qualifications of the workman, length of service and availability of alternative work. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the management that both the workmen were employed hardly for two years with the management and, therefore, they are not entitled to backwages even on this count. Besides this, the workmen have been paid wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my view, the submission of the learned advocate is well founded. Backwages must be awarded taking into consideration various factors. In the present case, there is no evidence on the question of gainful employment during the period of their unemployment with the management. In my view, it would be appropriate therefore to remand the reference only for the purposes of determining the backwages payable to the workmen.
S.M. Renu vs Proprietor, Mahajan Silk Mills & Others on 24 July, 1992
As regards the offer made for jobs in the sister concern, the learned advocate submits that the workmen were not bound to accept these jobs as held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of S.M. Renu v. The Proprietor, Mahajan Silk Mills and Ors. reported in 1992(11) C.L.R. 408.
Firth (India) Steel Co. Ltd. vs Industrial Court And Ors. on 8 January, 1988
The view taken by the Court in the aforesaid judgment has been reiterated in the case of Firth (India) Steel Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Court, Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 1990(1) L.L.N. 172.
Gansons Engineers (P) Ltd. vs Shriram Y. Chhatre And Anr. on 16 March, 1999
In the case of Gansons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the workmen were terminated from service and they were offered employment at Nasik or were directed to accept retrenchment compensation. The option was neither exercised nor did the workmen join at Nasik. The Court has held in these circumstances that there was no termination of service and, therefore, backwages need not be directed to be paid. However, in that case, since the workman had been reinstated in Nasik during the pendency of the petition, the Court did not interfere with the award, but modified it by setting aside the direction for payment of backwages. In the case of General.
1