Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Kumar Purohit & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 15 January, 2009
In Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan,
1989 (2) RLR 401, a Division Bench of this Court examined the
question as to whether the Department of Women, Child and Nutrition
is an 'industry' under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. The Division Bench observed that the functions of the State
today are not confined only to what are generally known as the
sovereign or regal or governmental function such as enactment of
laws, administration of laws and justice, maintaining of law and
order etc. The functions of State today include not only the
aforesaid activities but also welfare activities such as Irrigation,
Education, Medical, Transport, etc.
State 0F Bombay & Others vs The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha & Others on 29 January, 1960
In Udaipur Mineral
Development Corporation Ltd. v. M.P. Dave 1975 RLW 131, a
Division Bench of this Court has examined the scope of Sec.25F and
after placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Hospital Mazdoor Sabha's case, the Division Bench held that the
retirement of the service of a workman in violation of the provisions
contained in Sec.25F of 1947 Act renders the termination of service
as void and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with
back wages.
Factory Manager, Udaipur Mineral ... vs M.P. Dave And Anr. on 21 April, 1980
In Udaipur Mineral
Development Corporation Ltd. v. M.P. Dave 1975 RLW 131, a
Division Bench of this Court has examined the scope of Sec.25F and
after placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Hospital Mazdoor Sabha's case, the Division Bench held that the
retirement of the service of a workman in violation of the provisions
contained in Sec.25F of 1947 Act renders the termination of service
as void and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with
back wages.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dir.,Fisheries Terminal Division vs Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda on 9 November, 2009
The Labour Court has
considered that work is available and daily wagers were appointed in
place of respondent workman and looking to facts that written
statement filed by petitioner Ex.30 and workman was examined before
Labour Court on 15th February 2001, therefore, gainful
employment is not proved by petitioner and workman was remained
unemployed during this interim period, but, keeping in mind the
interim period and also keeping in mind the fact that workman is
daily wager, therefore, Labour Court has granted reinstatement with
continuity of service with consequential benefits and 20% back wages
of interim period. Therefore, contentions raised by learned AGP Mr.
Sharma cannot be accepted, because, workman has proved 240 days
continuous service as discussed at Page 20. The documents which are
produced by petitioner establish to prove 240 days continue service
of respondent workman as and when work available, new daily wagers
were appointed, therefore, contentions raised by learned AGP Mr.
Sharma cannot accepted, hence, rejected. [See : (i) Delhi
Administration through Directorate of Social Welfare, Delhi v.
Presiding Officer and Others 2004-I-LLJ 910 (Delhi) (ii) Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Haryana 2010 (1) Scale 432 (iii) Director,
Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikubhai Meghjibhai Chavda 2010
AIR SCW 542 (iv) Krishan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State
Agriculture Marketting Board, Rohtak (Haryana) - 2010 (2) Scale 848].