Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
General Manager vs M.Natesan on 30 March, 2007 cites

Indian Banks Association vs Workmen Of Syndicate Bank And Ors on 13 February, 2001

and the said writ petition filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court having been dismissed and the Honourable Supreme Court also dismissed the Civil Appeals in the decision reported in (2001) 3 SCC 36, (Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others), it is not open to the writ petitioner bank now to contend that the first respondent is not a workman. Therefore the finding of the Labour Court in the impugned award that the first respondent is a workman is fair and proper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 89 - S N Variava - Full Document

Rolston John vs Central Government Industrial ... on 28 January, 1992

(i) In 1995 Supplement (4) SCC 549 (Rolston John v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court) in paragraph 7 and 8 it is held thus, "7. As indicated earlier the termination of the service of the appellant by virtue of clause 24(e) of the Standing Orders constitutes retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is not the case of the respondent that the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have been complied with in this case. The said retrenchment being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F was void and ineffective. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we do not consider it appropriate to give the relief of reinstatement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 83 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Man Singh on 13 September, 2006

(iv) In (2006) 7 SCC 752 (U.P. SRTC v. Man Singh) in paragraph 8 it is held thus, "8. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that instead and in place of the direction for reinstatement of the respondent together with back wages from 1986, interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 to him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 53 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Municipal Council, Sujanpur vs Surinder Kumar on 5 May, 2006

(ii) In (2006) 5 SCC 173 (Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar) in paragraph 22 the Honourable Suprme Court held thus, "22. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the directions of the Labour Court and direct that in place of the respondent being reinstated with back wages, the appellant would pay monetary compensation to him, quantified at Rs.50,000. We make no order as to costs."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 220 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next