Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
Ezazkhan Mohammadkhan Pathan vs Divisional Controller, Gujarat State ... on 17 March, 2022 cites

Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh on 10 January, 1995

14. So far the argument of learned advocates for the Union that Page 5 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 17 23:07:33 IST 2022 C/SCA/5274/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2022 atleast notional benefit be given to the workmen is concerned, firstly it has to be decided as to whether the workman is entitled to the said benefit at all, and if yes, the question may crop up as to whether he should be given the said benefit with arrears or notionally. Since this Court has, on merits, found that the concerned workman was not entitled to the benefit claimed by him, the question of treating the said benefit notional or actual, would not arise at all. This alternative argument, therefore is rejected. Since, in some cases, the Corporation has given such benefit notionally, it would definitely create heart burning to the workmen, however keeping in view the above referred principle laid down by Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the decisions in the case of (i) Chandigarh Administration vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745, and (ii) State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65, this argument will not take the case of the Union / workmen any further. [ It is recorded that, by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which is the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.2262 of 2013, only notional benefit is granted.] 15.1 Both the sides have relied on number of precedents of this Court, referred above. If all those orders are taken into consideration, the picture which has emerged is that, all those orders can be classified in two different lines.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 382 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs S.T. Workers Union on 9 December, 2003

The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal Page 6 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 17 23:07:33 IST 2022 C/SCA/5274/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2022 No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 24 - R R Tripathi - Full Document

Haryana State Coop. Land Dev. Bank vs Neelam on 28 February, 2005

17. Since the impugned award of the Tribunal is found to be illegal and unsustainable on merits, the question of delay in approaching the Tribunal by the workmen may not have much relevance in the facts of these cases, however it needs to be observed that, if the concerned workmen were right in their assertion that on completion Page 7 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 17 23:07:33 IST 2022 C/SCA/5274/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2022 of 180 days service, counting from their initial date of engagement as a daily wager/ Badli worker, they ought to have been granted time scale, then there was inordinate and unexplained delay on their part in approaching the Tribunal. The situation in which the concerned workmen moved the Tribunal was such, where the concerned workmen can be said to have bound themselves by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio, or that, at least the dispute raised was for a stale claim. A question may also crop up, as to whether, under those circumstances, the same could be even termed to be an industrial dispute. Reference in this regard can be made to the decisions of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the cases of (i) Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank vs. Neelam reported in (2005) 5 SCC 91, more particularly para:18 thereof, and (ii) Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam vs. Sham Lal reported in (2006) 9 SCC 124, more particularly paras:9 and 10 thereof. This aspect should not have been overlooked by the Tribunal. On this additional ground of delay as well, the concerned workmen had disentitled themselves from getting any relief, at least arrears, unless specific reasons to do the contrary are recorded by the Tribunal, which it has not. [It is recorded that, by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which is the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.2262 of 2013, only notional benefit is granted.]"
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 306 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam & Anr vs Sham Lal on 3 July, 2006

12. Now so far as reliance placed upon decision of learned Single Page 9 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 17 23:07:33 IST 2022 C/SCA/5274/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2022 Judge in SCA No. 393 of 2000 by Shri PP Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of some of the workmen is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that in the said case, even the learned Single Judge concerned, on considering the reasonings given; more particularly in para 5 thereof, we are of the opinion that in the said decision, the learned Single Judge has not properly interpreted stipulations mentioned in Clause 20 of the Settlement. In any case, we are not in agreement with the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge in para-5 of the said decision. Even otherwise, in light of the decision rendered by Division Bench in LPAs referred to hereinabove, the decision of Division Bench is binding, rather than the decision of learned Single Judge."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 94 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1