Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.22 seconds)
Kanjibhai Punjabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2004 cites

State Of Haryana & Anr vs Chanan Mal Etc on 18 March, 1976

In the case of State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal, AIR 1976 SC 1654, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the Statement of objects and reasons are relevant when the object or purpose of the enactment is in dispute or uncertain. They can never override the effect which follows logically from the explicit and unmistakable language of its substantive provisions. Such effect is the best evidence of intention. A statement of objects and reasons is not a part of the statute and therefore not even relevant in a case in which the language of the operative part of the Act leaves no room whatsoever as it does not in the Haryana Act to doubt what was meant by the legislators.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 88 - M H Beg - Full Document

Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997

In the decision of Dena Bank v. Kiritkumar T. Patel reported in AIR 1998 SC 511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of interpretation of the words "full wages last drawn" appearing in section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act held that the said term cannot be extended so as to mean the wages which the workman would have drawn on the date of the award of reinstatement. It was observed that section 17-B, by conferring a right on the workman to be paid the amount of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings involving challenge to the award of the Labour Court in the High Court or the Supreme Court, which amount is not refundable or recoverable, in the event of the award being set aside, does not in any way, preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court to pass order directing payment of higher amount to the workman if such higher amount is considered necessary in the interest of justice and such direction would be de hors the provisions of section 17-B of the Act and the Court may, therefore, also give directions regarding refund or recovery of the excess amount in the event of the award being set aside. In para 22 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the following conclusion:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 206 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Ajaib Singh vs Sirhind Coop. ... on 8 April, 1999

In view of the above decision, it would be difficult to uphold the contention of the learned AGP that merely on account of the delay the workman would be disentitled to receive the benefits under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It would, however, not be difficult to envisage a situation where undue, inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the workman to approach the High Court for claiming the benefits under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act would create genuine difficulties in the way of the employer in ascertaining and disputing the averments of the workman in his affidavit that he was not gainfully employed throughout the period during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. In such a situation, the employer could validly contend that real prejudice has been caused to him on account of the gross inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the workman in approaching the High Court. In such a situation the employer may be in a position to deprive the workman the benefits of Section 17-B of the said Act to the extent of delay but not altogether. In the present case, however, no affidavit has been filed by the Government demonstrating as to how prejudice has been caused on account of the delay in filing the application by the workman. The defence of delay set up by the opponent in Civil Application No.1346 of 2004 therefore cannot be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 128 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next