Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)

Jasmer Singh vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 January, 2015

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Tribunal has erred in not directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service. He also submits that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the industrial dispute, but, it was because of pendency of the matter before the authorities for action. He further submits that if there was any delay, the Labour Court could have denied the wages while directing his reinstatement. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 869 as well as the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 754.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 227 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Gauri Shanker vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2015

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Tribunal has erred in not directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service. He also submits that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the industrial dispute, but, it was because of pendency of the matter before the authorities for action. He further submits that if there was any delay, the Labour Court could have denied the wages while directing his reinstatement. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 869 as well as the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 754.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 67 - V G Gowda - Full Document
1