Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Udai Narain Pandey on 8 December, 2005
21. In respect of back wages, learned Writ Court,
while disposing of Writ Petition No.21/2003, granted
conditional stay, that on dismissal of the second appeal
by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal,
Bhopal, the petitioner - Bank has to pay the entire
back wages with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
This order was passed in a writ petition filed by the
petitioner - Bank. The petitioner - Bank enjoyed the
stay order before the learned Authorities, and
therefore, we are of the view that the respondent -
employee is entitled for full back wages, because all the
three Authorities have concurrently exercised their
discretion in favour of grant of full back wages, after
holding termination of the respondent - employee as
mala fide and groundless. The grant or refusal of back
wages is no doubt discretionary and does not follow as
a rule of thumb on termination being set aside. This
discretion is to be exercised by the Tribunal after
taking into account all facts and circumstances of the
case, the conduct of the parties and length of services
up to the termination, being the most important of
them. The discretion has been exercised by the learned
Authorities concurrently in favour of the respondent -
employee on these vital considerations. The decision
in the case of U.P. State Brass-ware Corporation
14
WP No.606/2005
Limited v. Uday Narain Pandey (supra) has been
further explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
holding that it is applicable in cases arising out of
labour or industrial disputes. The present case does
not come within the aforesaid two categories. The
respondent was holding a civil post and his case stand
on a different footing.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002
In the present case, no direction was made
by the learned Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Mandsaur while allowing the application for
amendment on 10.02.1992 and thus, in view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Siddalingamma & another v. Mamtha Shenoy
(supra and in the case of Sampath Kumar v.
Ayyakannu and another (supra), any amendment
in the plaint relates back to the date of the suit unless a
different or contrary direction is made in the order
allowing amendment. Thus, we, relying on the
aforesaid analogy, fully agree with the arguments of
the learned counsel for the respondent - employee and
the order on amendment passed by the learned
13
WP No.606/2005
Authorities.
Siddalingamma And Anr vs Mamtha Shenoy on 18 October, 2001
In the present case, no direction was made
by the learned Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Mandsaur while allowing the application for
amendment on 10.02.1992 and thus, in view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Siddalingamma & another v. Mamtha Shenoy
(supra and in the case of Sampath Kumar v.
Ayyakannu and another (supra), any amendment
in the plaint relates back to the date of the suit unless a
different or contrary direction is made in the order
allowing amendment. Thus, we, relying on the
aforesaid analogy, fully agree with the arguments of
the learned counsel for the respondent - employee and
the order on amendment passed by the learned
13
WP No.606/2005
Authorities.
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Syed Zalil Akhtar vs Zila Sahkari Krishi Avam ... on 7 January, 2016
In respect of question of limitation, the law is
well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Syed
Zalil Akhtar v. Zila Sahakari Krishi Avam
Gramin Vikas Bank Mydt. (supra), wherein the
Apex Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act
would apply in all force to the case on hand and
consequently condoned the delay by holding that there
was every justification and sufficient cause for the
appellant in his claim for condoning the said two days
delay in filing the application before the original
authority.
Jasbir Singh vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors on 31 October, 2006
In respect of decision of the Apex Court in
the case of U.P. State Brass-ware Corporation
Limited v. Uday Narain Pandey (supra), he placed
reliance on paragraph No.15 of the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind
Bank reported in (2007) 1 SCC 566 and submitted
11
WP No.606/2005
that the judgment in the case of U.P. State Brass-
ware Corporation Limited v. Uday Narain
Pandey (supra) was further explained and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that it is applicable in cases
arising out of labour or industrial disputes. The
respondent was holding a civil post and, therefore, his
case stand on a different footing.