Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.45 seconds)
Date Of Decision:03.12.2013 vs Presiding Officer on 3 December, 2013 cites

Central Inland Water Transport ... vs The Workmen & Anr on 23 April, 1974

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Labour Court proceeded on an erroneous approach, while passing the impugned order because the respondent-workman was not having any pre- existing claim. Proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act were in the nature of execution, which would be available to the respondent- workman only if he had any pre-existing right or if the same was specifically provided under the statute. She further submits that learned Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order awarding the amount which was based on a disputed claim. She relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. The Workmen and another, 1974 (4) SCC 696. Finally, she prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 340 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002

Further, it is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes, difference of one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 375 - A Pasayat - Full Document

The General Manager Haryana vs Azad Singh And Ors on 23 March, 2011

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any fault with the impugned order so far as it was based on the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No. 15807 of 2008 (The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh v. Azad Singh and others), decided on 5.3.2009, which was in turn based on a Division Bench judgment dated 11.8.2003 of this Court passed in CWP No.12530 of 2002 (State of Haryana v. Anirudh and others).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 148 - H Gupta - Full Document

Jugal Kishore And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 15 April, 2009

Another relevant Division Bench Saluja Mukesh Kumar CWP NO.26448 of 2013 and others 6 2013.12.11 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document judgment of this Court was Jugal Kishore v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) SCT 433. Thus, the learned Labour Court rightly held that the respondent-workman was having a pre-existing claim and it was also covered in his favour vide above-said judgments of this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - M Grover - Full Document
1