Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (1.79 seconds)U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 6 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
U.P. State Electricity Board Through ... vs Sri Brahm Singh S/O Sri Lattar Singh And ... on 17 February, 2006
25. As regards the maintainability of the application for setting aside the ex-parte Award even after publication of the Award in Gazette is concerned, suffice it to say that there is no quarrel with the statement of the workman by learned Counsel for the employers. However, the Apex Court upheld the law laid down by this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Supra) which was followed in U.P. State Electricity Board (Supra), wherein the Court has considered the question of application for restoration after publication of the Award and has construed the provisions of the Central as well as State Act harmoniously.
M/S Sangham Tape Company vs Hans Raj on 27 September, 2004
Reference may be made to cases of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. (supra) and Sanghavi Tape Co. v. Hans Raj (supra). Thus if the application for setting aside the ex parte award is not filed within 10 days, it can be filed with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act up to 30 days of publication of the award. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application after 30 days of publication of ex parte award.
Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial ... on 12 December, 1980
Reference may be made to cases of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. (supra) and Sanghavi Tape Co. v. Hans Raj (supra). Thus if the application for setting aside the ex parte award is not filed within 10 days, it can be filed with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act up to 30 days of publication of the award. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application after 30 days of publication of ex parte award.
Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
24. The decisions relied upon by Sri S.S. Nigam rendered in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani ; Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas ; Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar ; and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hari Ram etc. are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the instant case the workman has filed his written statement and also entered into witness box for proving his case that he had continuously worked for 240 days' service, therefore, he has discharged his burden of proof and the onus has shifted on the employers.
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs Siri Niwas on 6 September, 2004
24. The decisions relied upon by Sri S.S. Nigam rendered in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani ; Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas ; Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar ; and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hari Ram etc. are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the instant case the workman has filed his written statement and also entered into witness box for proving his case that he had continuously worked for 240 days' service, therefore, he has discharged his burden of proof and the onus has shifted on the employers.
M/S Essen Deinki vs Rajiv Kumar on 29 October, 2002
24. The decisions relied upon by Sri S.S. Nigam rendered in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani ; Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas ; Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar ; and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hari Ram etc. are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the instant case the workman has filed his written statement and also entered into witness box for proving his case that he had continuously worked for 240 days' service, therefore, he has discharged his burden of proof and the onus has shifted on the employers.