Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.35 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Allahabad Jal Sansthan vs Daya Shankar Rai & Anr on 3 May, 2005
[See also Allahabad Jal Sansthan (supra), para 6]
The only question is whether the Respondent would be entitled to
back wages from the date of his termination of service till the
aforementioned date. The decision to close down the establishment by the
State of Uttar Pradesh like other public sector organizations had been taken
as far back on 17.11.1990 wherefor a GO had been issued. It had further
been averred, which has been noticed hereinbefore, that the said GO has
substantially been implemented. In this view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the back wages payable
to the Respondent for the period 1.4.1987 to 26.3.1993 is confined to 25% of
the total back wages payable during the said period.
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors on 19 December, 1975
The expression 'ordinarily' must be understood given its due
meaning. A useful reference in this behalf may be made to a 4-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed and Others [(1976) 1 SCC 671] wherein it has been held:
J.N. Srivastava vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 22 September, 1997
In J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Another [(1998) 9 SCC 559]
again no law has been laid down in the fact situation obtaining therein. The
court held that the workmen had all along been ready and willing to work,
the plea of 'no work no pay' as prayed for should not be applied.
Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh ... vs Vinay Narayan Vajpayee on 16 January, 1980
We may notice that in M.D., U.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. Vijay
Narayan Vajpayee [(1980) 3 SCC 459] and Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Shri
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. although an observation had been made to
the effect that in a case where a breach of the provisions of Section 25-F has
taken place, the workmen cannot be denied back wages to any extent, no
law, which may be considered to be binding precedent has been laid down
therein.
P.G.I.Of M.E. & Research, Chandigarh vs Raj Kumar on 2 November, 2000
In Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Another
[(2002) 6 SCC 41], this Court noticed Raj Kumar (supra) and Hindustan Tin
Works (supra) but held: