Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.50 seconds)
Sri R. Pandhubhai C/O. State Labour ... vs Management, Bombay Cycle Importing ... on 3 March, 1969
cites
Regional Conciliation Officer vs Kays Construction Company (Private) ... on 15 March, 1962
Thus it is clear from the decision that it is obvious that there is some difference between the two sub-sections and that it arises from the fact that the benefit contemplated in Sub-section (2) is not 'money due' but some advantage or per-quisite which can be reckoned in terms of money. This decision was made in the appeal preferred against the decision in Regional Conciliation Officer v. Kays Constructions Co., 1962-2 Lab LJ 8 (All) and it affirmed that decision. It was held in that decision that wages which a workman gets could not be equated with benefit. But there are decisions of this court and the Supreme Court which have held that a claim for back wages would clearly fall under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.
Burn & Co., Calcutta vs Their Employees(And Connected Appeal) on 11 October, 1956
In Burn and Co., Ltd. v. Their Employees, 1957-1 Lab LJ 226 = (AIR 1957 SC 32) the Supreme Court has held that the rule of res judicata enacted in Section 11, Civil P. C. is in terms inapplicable, but the principle underlying it is founded on sound public policy and is of universal application and that there are good reasons why the principle should be applicable to decisions of Industrial Tribunals also.
Iypunny C.K. vs Madhusudan Mills And Anr. on 12 August, 1963
In Iypunny v. Madhusudan Mills, it has been held that the principles analogous to res judicata have been applied to proceedings -under the Industrial Disputes Act on grounds of public policy in the general interest of finality of decision. It has been held that the remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is in addition to the remedy provided for under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 but if an application is made under either of the Acts and fails on merits, a similar second application would be barred.
The Super Surgical Co. vs S. Desikan And Anr. on 5 September, 1968
In the Super Surgical Co. v. Desikan, it has been held that as neither in the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules nor in the Madras industrial Disputes Rules, the Labour Court is empowered to grant leave to withdraw an application with permission to file a fresh application on the same grounds, the Labour Court cannot permit the withdrawal of a claim petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act and entertain a fresh application and that the fresh application would be barred by res judicata.
M.K. Venkatachalam vs Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co. on 28 April, 1958
He also referred to the following observation of Lord Asquith of Bishopstone in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, 1952 AC 109 at p. 132 quoted with approval in Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dveing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., :
Dhandapani (V.) vs Salem Co-Operative Wholesale Stores ... on 10 September, 1958
The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that it is open to the petitioner to claim wages in a second peti-tion, though a claim for back wages for a prior period is barred is disallowed. He relied on the decisions in Dhandapani v. Salem Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Ltd., 1950-1.
Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964
In Kays Construction Co. v. State of U. P., In construing Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6-H of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, corresponding to Clauses (1) and (2) of Section 33-C of the Act, the antithesis between 'money due' and 'benefit which must be computed, in terms of money' is pointed out.
Jugal Kishore Bhadani vs Labour Commissioner And Ors. on 26 February, 1958
8. The other contentions were urged by the learned Advocate for the first respondent. According to him. Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act conferred uncontrolled and unlimited powers on the appellate authority which post is occupied by an administrative or executive officer, to pass final and conclusive orders without any right of appeal and that it infringed the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He relied on the decision in J. K. Bhadani v. Labour Commissioner, where similar provisions contained in Section 26(2) and 26(3) of the Bihar Act 8 of 1954, were held to be ultra vires of the powers of the legislature. It is really unnecessary to consider this point as it has been taken for the first time during arguments and it would entail notice to the Government Pleader, if it has to be considered.
S. S. Shetty vs Bharat Nidhi, Ltd on 17 September, 1957
9. The other point raised by the learned Advocate for the first respondent is that the Labour Court has not considered, the relevant principles of law in assessing the amount at Rs. 2,200/-. He relied on the decisions in Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., and Malik Dairy Farms v. Its Workers Union, 1968-2 Lab LJ 523 (Bom) in support of his Contention. Though the first respondent filed documents to show that the petitioner was employed elsewhere after he left the services of the first respondent it made no attempt to prove the same. It is only in a case where an employee seeks to recover damages for wrongful dismissal, one has to take several factors into consideration for assessing the damages. But, in the present case, the petitioner's claim is that he continues to be in the service of the first respondent and that he is not employed elsewhere. If the claim of the petitioner is otherwise justified, I fail to see how he cannot recover the amount of wages for the period from 16-8-1961 to 29-2-1964. But in view of my finding on the question of res judi-cata it is really unnecessary to consider the last two points urged by the learned advocate for the first respondent.