Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)
Shri Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 19 November, 2020 cites

Sri. Prabhakar vs Joint Director Sericulture Department on 7 September, 2015

4. Consistency in various judgments passed by different Hon'ble Benches of this Court is not coming forth on the common legal point involved in these cases rather conflicting views are being taken. Even some of the observations in Larger Bench's decision in Laiq Ram's case supra, have been expressed differently by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar's case supra.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 22 - Cited by 439 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Raghubir Singh vs Gen.Manager,Haryana Roadways,Hissar on 3 September, 2014

3. From the perusal of above judgments, it is evident that the judgments rendered by different Hon'ble benches of this Court have not been taking a consistent view regarding power of appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of reference of disputes/claims raised by the workmen for adjudication to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. In some of the judgments, the appropriate Government has been held to be vested with power to decline referring the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal on grounds of delay, stale claims, faded/eclipsed/dead disputes etc. whereas in the others the view taken is that delay and laches cannot be a ground for refusing to make a reference and that it is the Labour Court which can refuse the relief, mould the relief or refuse to grant backwages on ground of delay. Hon'ble Apex Court though has settled the legal position after considering the law and the precedents right from 1953 to 2014 (10) SCC 301 , titled as Raghubir Singh versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, in (2015) 15 SCC 1 , titled Prabhakar versus Joint Director Sericulture Department and another and has culled out following principles:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 315 - Full Document

Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 26 December, 2018

2. A legal question needs firm answering before the individual factual matrix involved in these writ petitions can be separately examined. To explain the law point involved, for convenience, we lift bare minimum facts from the lead case CWP No. 2190/2020, Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The petitioner had worked with H.P. Public Works Department from 1988 to 1993. His services were allegedly illegally terminated in 1993. Twenty six years later he raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice received by the respondents on 24.6.2019. The Labour Commissioner/appropriate Government after relying upon some decisions of this Court refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court on grounds of delay. Reference of dispute by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is governed by provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 10(1) being relevant is extracted hereinafter:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 29 - S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 Next