Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)
Wearwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs . Ravi Kumar Yadav on 7 August, 2020 cites

Wearwell (India) Private Limited vs Ravi Kant Yadav on 20 February, 2019

13.The main purpose of the Act as discernible from its provisions is the prevention of illegitimate deductions from the wages of employee and delay in their payments. Section­15 of the Act aims at the accomplishment of this purpose and any adjudication necessary for the fulfillment of that object is permissible. Where the relationship of employer and employee subsists and is admitted, but there is a controversy about the quantum of wages payable by the Management to the employee, an enquiry into that question for the purpose of determination of actual amount payable by way of wages would fall within the orbit of the enquiry. Other similar or incidental questions may also fall within the scope of such enquiry. However, if the application for payment of full wages is resisted by the Management on the plea that the applicant is not a workman or was not its employee at any time then dispute does not come within the RCA No. 62/2019 Wearwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravi Kumar Yadav Page No. 6 of 18 do main of Payment of Wages Act.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - R Palli - Full Document

Chief Officer, Bhavnagar Nagarpalika vs Meghjibhai Ugabhai And Ors. on 20 January, 1992

34.In Chief Officer, Bhavnagar Nagarpalika vs. Meghjibhai Ugabhai & Others, in Special Civil Application No. 184/1980 (MANU/GJ/ 0173/1992) decided on 20.01.1992 by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat a similar issued was considered in regard to the payment of compensation/penalty under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which was similar to Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act. It was observed that the powers must be exercised under Section 20 of the Act judiciously and the discretion conferred upon the Authority is not unbridled or unguided. It was again held that ten times penalty is neither mandatory nor compulsory and would depend on factors like nature of employment, the status of employer, the nature of defaults, the number of defaults, the frequency thereof, the amount involved, the delay and such like factors. The Authority is required to carefully look into the matter and decide in accordance with sound judicious principles and apply its mind to the question whether or not the claim is false, frivolous or vexations and this should be sufficient guidelines for the purpose of exercise of discretionary powers.
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 25 - J M Panchal - Full Document

K.P. Mushran vs B.C. Patil And Anr. on 24 August, 1951

24.In Mushran vs. Patil, MANU/MH/0074/1952 : AIR 1952 Bombay 235 the employee was under suspension and contention was put­ forth by the employer/Railway Authority that in view of suspension, no claim could be made for payment of wages during the period of suspension. Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that if the relationship of master and servant subsisted between the parties, then notwithstanding the suspension, the employer is liable to pay the charges for that period.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 46 - B P Sinha - Full Document

C.S. Parameswaran vs The Authority Under The Minimum Wages ... on 19 April, 1968

32.The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in C.S. Parameswaran vs. The Authority Manu/MH/0193/1968in regard to similar provision under Minimum Wages Act held that the Act vests a discretion in the Authority whether to impose penalty or not; this discretion has to be exercised judicially and in all circumstances must be connected with the matter i.e. nonpayment or delayed payment must be taken into account; each case must depend on the equities of the case; there may be cases where the employer is not at fault, there may be some difficulties in his way or there may be some cause which prevented him from implementing the provisions of the Act; all these factors may be considered before awarding the compensation.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 26 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next