Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.67 seconds)
Regional vs Hareshbhai on 23 June, 2010 cites

J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007

Therefore, learned advocate Ms.Davawala has not made correct facts before this Court and mis-represented by producing documents at Page-30 which was not a part of As regards the claim for back wages, it is to be seen that the Labour Court has consciously exercised its jurisdiction in denying the back wages in its entirety. The manner in which back wages are viewed has undergone a significant change in the last two decades. They are no longer considered to be an automatic or natural consequence of reinstatement. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and Another (2007) 2 SCC 433 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 579 - Full Document

R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005

15) Applying the principles laid down in the above case by this court, the evidence produced by the appellants has not been consistent. The appellants claim that the respondent did not work for 240 days. The respondent was a workman hired on a daily wage basis. So it is obvious, as this court pointed out in the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the official documents, muster rolls etc. in connection with his service. He has come forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the employer/appellants to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service. It is the contention of the appellant that the services of the respondent were terminated in 1988. The witness produced by the appellant stated that the respondent stopped coming to work from February, 1988. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant is contradictory to this fact as it shows that the respondent was working during February, 1989 also. It has also been observed by the High Court that the muster roll for 1986-87 was not completely produced. The appellants have inexplicably failed to produce the complete records and muster rolls from 1985 to 1991, inspite of the direction issued by the labour court to produce the same. In fact there has been practically no challenge to the deposition of the respondent during cross-examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 901 - Full Document

Dir.,Fisheries Terminal Division vs Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda on 9 November, 2009

12.1 The decisions which are relied by learned advocate Ms.Davawala have been considered by this Court and considering the facts which are on record and proved by respondent workman, the said decisions are not applicable to facts which proved on record. Not only that the decisions relied by Ms.Davawala has subsequently diluted by Apex Court in other decisions delivered by three Judges Bench of Apex Court in case of R.M.Yellatti (supra) and said decision has been considered by Apex Court in case of Director of Fisheries (supra) as discussed in present order as referred above. Merely relying upon any decision by advocate which are not applicable to the facts, naturally it cannot be helpful to the advocate of petitioner. The advocate should know recent law on the subject and not to cite only decisions without considering recent decisions of Apex Court on the same subject. Therefore, decisions which are relied by learned advocate Ms.Davawala not applicable to prove the facts found on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 207 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Mohan Lal vs Management Of M/S Bharat Electronics ... on 21 April, 1981

In Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 1253 : (1981) 3 SCC 225 : 1981-II-LLJ-70, it was held that termination simplicitor of services of a temporary workman not falling within the excepted or excluded categories mentioned in Section 2(oo) would amount to 'retrenchment' and if immediately preceding the date of termination of service, such workman actually worked for not less than 240 days within a period of 12 months under the employer, he will be deemed to be in 'continuous service' for one year and therefore would be entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F(6-N) would render the order of termination ab intio void entitling him to a declaration for continuation in service with full back wages.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 344 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next