Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 6N in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
L. Robert D'Souza vs The Executive Engineer Southern ... on 16 February, 1982
What has been held by this Court in L. Robert D'Souza [L.
Robert D'Souza v. Southern Railway, (1982) 1 SCC 645 :
Uttranchal Forest Development ... vs M.C. Joshi on 23 February, 2007
In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C.
Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813] , this
Court was concerned with a daily wager who had worked
with Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. from 1-8-
1989 to 24-11-1991 and whose services were held to be
terminated in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had directed
the reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages
from the date the industrial dispute was raised. Setting
aside the order of reinstatement and back wages, this
Court awarded compensation in a sum of Rs 75,000 in
favour of the workman keeping in view the nature and
period of service rendered by the workman and the fact
that industrial dispute was raised after six years.
Mahboob Deepak vs Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr on 13 December, 2007
In Mahboob Deepak [Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar
Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575 : (2008) 1 SCC
(L&S) 239] this Court stated that an order of retrenchment
passed in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act may be set aside but an order of
reinstatement should not however be automatically passed.
This Court observed in paras 11 and 12 of the Report as
follows: (SCC p. 578)
"11. The High Court, on the other hand, did
not consider the effect of non-compliance with
the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant
was entitled to compensation, notice and notice
pay.
Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr vs Employer I/R To Mangmt.Of F.C.I. & Anr on 17 February, 2014
19. Before I come to the relief, I deal with the judgments referred to
by the petitioner. The judgments as referred to in the case of Harjinder
Singh's case (supra), Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. case (supra), Delhi
Cantonment Board case (supra), S.M.Nilajkar's case (supra) and Kamla
case (supra), since the Supreme Court has held that when termination is
held illegal for not following Section 25F of the Act, reinstatement with
full back wages is not automatic and the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Harjinder Singh's case was referred to and distinguished in the case of
Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Sub
Division, Kota case (supra) and in Hari Nandan case (supra) and the fact
that the petitioner has worked only for 7 years in all with effect from
1990 out of which 2 years directly under the respondent and the
petitioner has been litigating for the last 17 years, I deem it appropriate
that a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement be granted
to the petitioner, which would be in the nature of full and final settlement
without any claim of whatsoever nature in future. The said amount shall
be payable to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from today,
otherwise interest @10% p.a would accrue to him.
Section 11 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
M/S. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg..Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, ... on 31 March, 2003
19. Before I come to the relief, I deal with the judgments referred to
by the petitioner. The judgments as referred to in the case of Harjinder
Singh's case (supra), Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. case (supra), Delhi
Cantonment Board case (supra), S.M.Nilajkar's case (supra) and Kamla
case (supra), since the Supreme Court has held that when termination is
held illegal for not following Section 25F of the Act, reinstatement with
full back wages is not automatic and the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Harjinder Singh's case was referred to and distinguished in the case of
Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Sub
Division, Kota case (supra) and in Hari Nandan case (supra) and the fact
that the petitioner has worked only for 7 years in all with effect from
1990 out of which 2 years directly under the respondent and the
petitioner has been litigating for the last 17 years, I deem it appropriate
that a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement be granted
to the petitioner, which would be in the nature of full and final settlement
without any claim of whatsoever nature in future. The said amount shall
be payable to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from today,
otherwise interest @10% p.a would accrue to him.