Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)National Institute Of Public ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 April, 2008
14. The Respondent has submitted that self-employment is not gainful
employment for the purposes of Section 17B of the Act. To canvass the said
submission, he has relied upon National Institute of Public Co-operation
(supra) where a ld. Single Judge of this Court has observed as under:
Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs Delhi Administration Through ... on 27 September, 1984
28. The expression "gainful employment in an
establishment" has been considered by this Court and
the Supreme Court in various cases and it has been
held that gainful employment cannot be extended to
begging and similar activities carried on by a
dismissed employee for his survival. The Supreme
Court in Rajinder Kumar Kundra v. Delhi
Administration had held as under:
North East Karnataka Road Transport ... vs M.Nagangouda on 9 January, 2007
16. The Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation v. M. Nagangouda (Civil Appeal No. 129/2007, decided on 9th
January 2007), has clearly held that gainful employment includes self-
employment, as there is a source of income or remuneration that is present.
The Supreme Court has held as under:
Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997
In
Dena Bank Vs. Kiriti Kumar T. Patel, (1999) 2 SCC 106, the
Apex Court was of the view that the object under Section 17B of
the ID Act is only to relieve to a certain extent, the hardship
that is caused to the workman due to the delay in
implementation of the Award.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Santosh Kumari & Anr. on 24 August, 2012
18. A Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Santosh Kumari (LPA 165/12 and connected matters, decided on 24th
August 2012) has also considered this issue of the proof of "gainful
employment" that has to be ascertained by the Court while dealing with an
application under Section 17B of the Act, and the possibility of self-
employment being relevant. The Division Bench in this case has held as
under:
M/S Tata Sons Ltd vs Workmen & Anr on 31 July, 2013
20. A coordinate bench of this Court in Tata Sons v. Workmen and ors.,
203 (2013) DLT 453, while dealing with a case where the workmen who
were gainfully self-employed however, had wrongly stated before the Court
that they were not employed, while considering the application under
Section 17B, held as under: