Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Workmen Represented By Hindustan V.O. ... vs Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation ... on 10 April, 2000
7. It is well settled that an application under Section 17B of the ID Act is
required to be considered at the earliest and ordinarily prior to the disposal
of the writ petition challenging the award [Ref.: Workmen represented by
Hindustan V.O. Corpn. Ltd. (supra)].
Toran Singh And Ors vs State Of C.G. 105 Mac/902/2010 Lokesh ... on 28 November, 2017
and Ors. Vs Rameshwar Sharma and Ors.4
iii.
Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs Delhi Administration Through ... on 27 September, 1984
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Anr vs Ghanshyam on 8 May, 2001
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Unitas Foods Private Limited
(supra), while taking note of the decision in Dena Bank (supra), was also in
cession of the fact that, besides a mere denial, nothing had been placed on
record to demonstrate that the workman was gainfully employed. The onus
of proving such fact lies upon the employer, and the same has to be brought
on record in the form of some evidence in order to deny the benefit available
to the workman under Section 17B of the ID Act. Though learned counsel
for the Management stressed that the workman remained unemployed only
for some period during the pendency of the claim proceedings, it is pertinent
to note that even if a workman is employed briefly, the same would not
come in the way of grant of benefit under Section 17B of the ID Act.