Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
) Whether The Domestic Enquiry Was Not ... vs Sardar Singh on 8 April, 2010 cites

U.P. Stte Electricity Board vs Laxmi Kant Gupta on 26 September, 2008

20. The grant of back wages is a matter of mere discretion. I am also aware of the rulings in 2009 LLR page no. 1, UP State Electricity Board Vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta and Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam , 2008- III, LLJ 562, Talwara Co-op. Credit & Service Society Ltd. vs. S. Kumar 2009-I-LLJ 328 SC. in 2009 LLR page no. 1, UP State Electricity Board Vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta and Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam , 2008-III, LLJ 562, Talwara Co-op. Credit & Service Society Ltd. vs. S. Kumar 2009-I-LLJ 328 SC. In the light of the above rulings and more particularly in this case, I see that the past record of the workman assumes significance. The past record of the workman is not in his favour as he has already suffered a major penalty of reduction of pay to the initial stage. Further more the workman has not stated that he has tried for alternate employment. He has only stated that he remained unemployed since the date of termination in the claim statement. The workman stated for the first time in the rebuttal evidence that he tried for an alternate employment which becomes an after thought. I find from the facts of the case that the workman is not entitled for any back wages. Hence, I pass the following award :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 134 - M Katju - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar vs Dtc on 15 May, 2007

In the recent ruling of our Hon'ble High Court in Ramesh Chand v/s DTC in WP No. 14148 of 2009 DD : 23.02.2010, held that "therefore, there as a long gap of 13 years and due to this gap the petitioner should have led a positive evidence to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed after the date of his termination. In the absence of any evidence led by the petitioner, I do not find that the finding given by the Ld. Labur Court denying the back wages to the petitioner can be held to be perverse or illegal.'
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - S Khanna - Full Document

Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy vs Radhey Shyam on 11 July, 2008

20. The grant of back wages is a matter of mere discretion. I am also aware of the rulings in 2009 LLR page no. 1, UP State Electricity Board Vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta and Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam , 2008- III, LLJ 562, Talwara Co-op. Credit & Service Society Ltd. vs. S. Kumar 2009-I-LLJ 328 SC. in 2009 LLR page no. 1, UP State Electricity Board Vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta and Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam , 2008-III, LLJ 562, Talwara Co-op. Credit & Service Society Ltd. vs. S. Kumar 2009-I-LLJ 328 SC. In the light of the above rulings and more particularly in this case, I see that the past record of the workman assumes significance. The past record of the workman is not in his favour as he has already suffered a major penalty of reduction of pay to the initial stage. Further more the workman has not stated that he has tried for alternate employment. He has only stated that he remained unemployed since the date of termination in the claim statement. The workman stated for the first time in the rebuttal evidence that he tried for an alternate employment which becomes an after thought. I find from the facts of the case that the workman is not entitled for any back wages. Hence, I pass the following award :
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 79 - D K Jain - Full Document
1