Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980
20) In the case of Deepali (supra) a two Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court had, after reviewing the earlier precedents
including the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Employees 4, and Surendra
Kumar Verma Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
3 (2013) 10 SCC 324
4 (1979) 2 SCC 80
13/21
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2023 01:49:06 :::
22-WPL-3693-20.DOC
Court5, the three Judge Bench judgments, had laid down the
following principles:-
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd vs Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. ... on 7 September, 1978
38.6 In a number of cases, the superior Courts have
interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory
authority on the premise that finalization of litigation
has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases
the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of
infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for
delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants
cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to
grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is
denied back wages simply because there is long lapse
of time between the termination of his service and
finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts
should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the
employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the
employee or workman. He can avail the services of best
legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e.,
16/21
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2023 01:49:06 :::
22-WPL-3693-20.DOC
the employee or workman, who can ill afford the
luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain
amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be
prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan
Tin Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin
Works Private Limited (supra).
J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007
38.7 The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd V.
K.P. Agrawal(supra) that on reinstatement the
employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service
as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of
three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and
cannot be treated as good law. This part of the
judgment is also against the very concept of
reinstatement of an employee/workman...."
Pradeep Rajkumar Jain vs Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., A Govt. Of ... on 4 April, 2017
It would be suffice to make a
profitable reference to a recent pronouncement of the Supreme
Court in the case of Pradeep s/o Rajkumar Jain Vs. Manganese
Ore (India) Limited and Others6, wherein the Supreme Court
considered two lines of the decisions.
Talwara Coop.Credit &Service Society ... vs Sushil Kumar on 1 October, 2008
The first, which follows the
Three Judge Bench judgment in the case of Hindustan Tin Works
(supra) and, the second, represented by the view adopted by the
Supreme Court in the case of Talwara Coop. Credit and Service
6 (2022) 3 SCC 683
17/21
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2023 01:49:06 :::
22-WPL-3693-20.DOC
Society Ltd Vs. Sushil Kumar7, wherein reference was made to
the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act to
cast burden on the workman to show that she was neither
gainfully employed nor generated income.