Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Uttranchal Forest Development ... vs M.C. Joshi on 23 February, 2007
(Para 22)
5.5 In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs.
M.C. Joshi [(2007)9 SCC 353], the Supreme Court inter alia
stated that on the question of grant of compensation instead of
reinstatement, one of the relevant factor was whether
appointment in question was made in terms of statutory rules.
Jasmer Singh vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 January, 2015
4.2 Learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the respondent
workmen highlighted the findings of the Labour Court and
confirmation thereof by learned single Judge regarding breach
of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. He relied on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur [(2011) 6 SCC 584], in Jasmer
Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2015) 4 SCC
458], as also of this court in Agriculture Produce Market
Committee Vs. Kanubhai Laxmanbhai Patel being Letters
Patent Appeal No.1099 of 2017 decided on 21.7.2008, to submit
that only relief of reinstatement deserves to be granted in law to
the respondent workmen as has been rightly confirmed by
learned single Judge.
Jagbir Singh vs Haryana Agricultural University on 10 July, 2014
Awarding compensation
of Rs.1 lac, the Apex Court observed,
"If the principles stated in Jagbir Singh(supra)
and the decisions of this Court referred to
therein are kept in mind, it will be found that the
High Court erred in granting relief of
reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent
was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his
engagement continued for about 7 years
intermittently upto September 6, 1985 i.e. about
25 years back. In a case such as the present one,
it appears to us that relief of reinstatement
cannot be justified and instead monetary
compensation would meet the ends of justice."
Sr.Suptd.Telegraph(Traffic)Bhopal vs Santosh Kumar Seal And Ors on 26 April, 2010
(para 14)
5.3 In Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal [(2010) 6 SCC
773], relying on Jagbir Singh (supra) the Supreme Court
observed about the shift in the approach of the court in granting
the relief of payment of lump-sum compensation.
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Udai Narain Pandey on 8 December, 2005
"In the last few years it has been consistently
held by this Court that relief by way of
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic
even if termination of an employee is found to be
illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed
procedure and that monetary compensation in
lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of
such nature may be appropriate. (See U.P. State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey
[2006 (1) SCC 479], Uttaranchal Forest
Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [2007 (9) SCC
353], State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma [2007
(1) SCC 575], M.P. Admn.
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Lalit Kumar Verma on 24 November, 2006
"In the last few years it has been consistently
held by this Court that relief by way of
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic
even if termination of an employee is found to be
illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed
procedure and that monetary compensation in
lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of
such nature may be appropriate. (See U.P. State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey
[2006 (1) SCC 479], Uttaranchal Forest
Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [2007 (9) SCC
353], State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma [2007
(1) SCC 575], M.P. Admn.
Incharge Officer And Anr vs Shankar Shetty on 31 August, 2010
In Shankar Shetty (supra) the Supreme Court
Page 19 of 21
Downloaded on : Mon Oct 03 20:54:52 IST 2022
C/LPA/599/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2022
noticed that there was gap of twenty five years since the date of
termination.