Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (1.34 seconds)
Dashrath Rajaram Solanke vs The Executive Engineer on 22 March, 2013 cites

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

have no application to the facts as the respondent had not taken any stand before the Labour Court in his objections that the post in which the workman was working was not sanctioned or that his engagement was contrary to statutory rules or that he was employed elsewhere or that there was no vacancy. In the absence of any pleadings, evidence or findings on any of these aspects, the High Court is found to be in error in modifying the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages and instead directed payment of compensation of Rs 50,000/- to the appellant. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) cited by the counsel for the respondent has been found not relevant as it relates to regularization in public employment and has no bearing on an award for reinstatement of a discharged workman passed by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act without any direction for regularization of his services. Thus, again on facts interference in writ jurisdiction is found unwarranted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 March, 1997

4. Shri Thakur submits that by following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others Vs. State of Bihar and others - (1997 (4) SCC 391) , the learned Single Judge has found that daily wagers like appellants do not hold any post. The provisions of "Kalelkar Award" contemplate creation of a post personnel to such daily wager after he puts five years of service. Such posts are treated as post personnel to holders thereof and on converted regular temporary establishment ie CRTE. Hence, those employees, who had not put in five years were not holding any posts and were not entitled to relief of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:08 ::: Judgment lpa28.98 5 reinstatement with full back wages. He contends that these appellants are aggrieved with this application of mind, which is apparent in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment. The daily wager is entitled to relief of reinstatement with continuity of back wages moment violation of provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act is established.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 228 - Full Document

Central Board Of Dawoodi Bohra ... vs State Of Maharashtra&Anr on 17 December, 2004

16. The judgment in the case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), is the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court where the Apex Court has pointed out ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:09 ::: Judgment lpa28.98 17 that law declared by it through a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength. A Bench of lesser strength or quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view taken by the larger quorum. It is only open for the Bench of co-equal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench whereupon the mater should be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a larger quorum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 682 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976

In the case of State Bank of India vs. N. Sundara Money (supra), the Hon'ble 3 Judges Bench has laid down that retrenchment compensation must be paid at the time of retrenchment and a weak workman needs to be placed back where he was left out. It is also observed that his new salary will be what he would have drawn in the same post on the date of reinstatement de novo. The relief has been granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is important to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also moulded relief and observed that workman will not be allowed to claim any advantages in the matter of seniority or other priority inter-se among temporary employees on the ground that his retrenchment is being declared invalid by it. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also added that it was not laying down any general proposition of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 323 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next