Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors on 12 August, 2013
6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Deepali
Gundu Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.)
and others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, wherein, the Honourable
Supreme Court after considering several judgments, came up with the
following propositions:
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd vs Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. ... on 7 September, 1978
38.6.In a number of cases, the superior Courts have
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.4960 of 2012
interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority
on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time
ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible
for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the
principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the
litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to
grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back
wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the
termination of his service and finality given to the order of
reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of
these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis
the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal
brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee
or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on
a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it
would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin
Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works
Private Limited (supra).
J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007
38.7.The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.
Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman
cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the
ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to
hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the
judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an
employee/workman.”
Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
1