Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Razak on 20 October, 1994
He placed reliance upon the decision of this
Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak &
Anr., 1995 (1) SCC 235, to explain the scope of the power
exercisable by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the
Act. He submitted that whenever any question arises as to
any matter which can be adjudicated as incidental to the
main question referred to the Tribunal, it will not fall
within the scope of Section 33C(2) of the Act.
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd vs Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. ... on 7 September, 1978
However, Shri Pramod Swarup, learned counsel for the
respondents, strongly supported the views taken by the
Labour Court and the High Court and contended that award of
reinstatement from a particular date would include in it
impliedly award of back wages as well and placed reliance
upon the decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., 1979
(1) SCR 563 and The Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. P.S.
Rajagopalan etc., 1964 (3) SCR 140. He contended that the
Labour Court is competent to interpret the award on which
the workman bases his claim under Section 33C(2) of the Act
and in doing so, it would certainly be open to the Labour
Court to expound the exact meaning and content of the award
as to whether it impliedly awards back wages or not and not
merely determine the quantum of the same.
The Central Bank Of India Ltd vs P.S. Rajagopalan Etc on 19 April, 1963
However, Shri Pramod Swarup, learned counsel for the
respondents, strongly supported the views taken by the
Labour Court and the High Court and contended that award of
reinstatement from a particular date would include in it
impliedly award of back wages as well and placed reliance
upon the decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., 1979
(1) SCR 563 and The Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. P.S.
Rajagopalan etc., 1964 (3) SCR 140. He contended that the
Labour Court is competent to interpret the award on which
the workman bases his claim under Section 33C(2) of the Act
and in doing so, it would certainly be open to the Labour
Court to expound the exact meaning and content of the award
as to whether it impliedly awards back wages or not and not
merely determine the quantum of the same.
Central Inland Water Transport ... vs The Workmen & Anr on 23 April, 1974
Relying on Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
Ltd. vs. The Workmen & A nr., 1975 (1) SCR 153, in further
elaboration of his contention, he submitted that a
proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act is in the nature
of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court is to
calculate the amount of money due to a workman from his
employer, or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which
is capable of being computed in terms of money, to compute
the same. Therefore, he submits that an investigation of
the nature mentioned in the reference is possible and falls
outside its scope. If such an investigation is taken up by
the Labour Court it would amount to the exercising a
function of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled
to make an adjudication on a question of award of back
wages. He submitted that the workmen in the present case
claimed that their services have been wrongfully terminated
and for an appropriate relief in that regard. Thus the
reference consisted of investigation as to the question
whether termination of the services of the workmen is
justified or not. If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled to. Thus the question of award of back wages in
full or in part or none was within the scope of reference to
the Tribunal.
Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh ... vs Vinay Narayan Vajpayee on 16 January, 1980
He also placed reliance in this regard
on the decision of this Court in Managing Director, Uttar
Pradesh Warehousing Corporation & Anr. vs. Vijay Narayan
Vajpayee, 1980(3) SCC 459.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P. Kasilingam vs P.S.G. College Of Technology on 8 January, 1981
The learned
counsel also referred to the decision in P. Kasilingam vs.
P.S.G.College of Technology, 1981 (1) SCC 405, to contend
that ordinarily reinstatement would be followed by award of
back wages and, therefore, when there was no reason to deny
the same, the award must be deemed to have included the
award of back wages.
1