Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.39 seconds)
Malkit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 31 January, 2024 cites

Ram Narain Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 15 July, 1975

9. This Court vide order dated 30.05.2023 directed the department to reconsider case of the petitioner in the light of Bikram Singh's case. In the order dated 30.05.2023, the order passed by department in the case of Bikram Singh was duly reproduced. In the case of Bikram Singh benefit of back wages has been denied on the principle of 'No Work-No Pay'. The petitioner was well 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2024 09:19:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013399 -5- CWP-2033-2024 aware of this fact while arguing his writ petition before this Court. The Court did not ask the department to extend benefit of back wages. The petition was allowed on the ground of parity and petitioner was reinstated on the same ground. Bikram Singh has not been extended benefit of back wages and petitioner has been reinstated in the light of orders passed by this Court as well as order in the case of Bikram Singh.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 220 - S M Ali - Full Document

B. D. Gupta vs State Of Haryana on 18 September, 1972

8. The petitioner relying upon judgment of this Court in "Ram Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1992(3) SCT 448" and judgment of Supreme Court in "B.D. Gupta Vs. State of Haryana 1973(3) SCC 149" is claiming that he was not at fault, thus, he should be paid salary for the period he remained dismissed from service. The claim of the petitioner deserves to be rejected on two counts i.e. principle of constructive res judicata as well as principle of 'No Work-No Pay'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

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 finalisation 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. 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. v. Employees [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 517 - D A Desai - Full Document

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 [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651] 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 [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2024 09:19:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013399 -8- CWP-2033-2024 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] , [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 579 - Full Document
1