Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (2.34 seconds)
The Divisional Controller vs Manik Rao S/O Gunderao Desai on 18 January, 2018 cites

Raj. State Road Transport Corp., & Anr vs Satya Prakash & Anr on 22 November, 2013

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Satya Prakash, in Civil Appeal No.4506 of 2008 dated 01.04.2013 and submitted that once the claim petition is dismissed under Section 10(4)(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, then he cannot invoke Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, it is to be set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 0 - Cited by 92 - G Mathur - Full Document

Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the management had challenged the order passed in Writ Petition No.84954/2011 (L-KSRTC), in which the order passed by the Labour Court in Ref.No.16/2010 was challenged and the learned Single Judge by its order dated 10.06.2013 by referring the judgment in the case of Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., v. Ram Gopal Sharama, reported in AIR (2002) 2 SCC 244, wherein it is observed that the order of termination from service is in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is void and inoperative and its second submission was that Writ Petition No.81689/2012(L- KSRTC) was allowed on 10.12.2012, by that time the Reference No.16/2010 was already disposed of but it was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and said writ petition was allowed in terms of the submissions 6 made by the respondent -workman to the effect that he will not be given backwages and he would be reinstated into service. The submission was taken on record and the writ petition was disposed of directing the management to reinstate the respondent into service without backwages and its submission that the said order was conscious in nature and now it is not open to the Corporation to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge and seek to confirm the order passed in KID No.22/2008.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1030 - S V Patil - Full Document
1