Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)Athni Municipality (By Its President) vs Shetteppa Laxman Pattan And Ors. on 2 March, 1965
The
language of the Form, covering the cases of past and
existing employees, was in accord not only with the latter
view of the Madras High Court and the Kerala High Court
but also with the views of the Patna High Court in Labour
Enforcement Officer (Central) vs. Presiding Officer,
CWP No. 17067 of 2011 (3)
Labour Court and Authority under the Minimum Wages
Act, Patna and others, [1976 ILR - Patna Series, 318] and
the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore in Athni
Municipality vs. Shetteppa Laxman Pattan and others
[1965 volume 2 LLJ 307]. Thus on account of the
preponderance of Authority, Sections 20 (2) and 2 (i) had
to be read alongwith the Rules and Form VI to lean in
favour of the view that both past and present employees
were entitled to move in the matter. Such would be a
purposive approach, which would carry out the necessary
intendment of the statute, for which the Rules and the
Form lend a hand to carry out the objectives of the Act.
The language-employed therein, even though executives
voiced, is more often than not, demonstrative of the
legislative purpose. So viewed, the intendment of the
statute is furthered if an ex-employee too is held entitled
to seek relief under Section 20(2) of the Act."
Section 2 in The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Pali Devi And Others vs Chairman Managing Committee & Anr on 15 February, 1996
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pali Devi's case (supra), has
specifically held, while interpreting the provisions of Sections 20 (2) and 2
1