Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Shyam Kishore Pandey vs Presiding Officer And Another on 18 August, 2023 cites

U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Udai Narain Pandey on 8 December, 2005

10. Per contra, Shri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, by placing reliance upon paragraph Nos. 61 and 62 of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479, has argued that if the workman did not raise any plea in his written statement that he was not gainfully employed, the burden cast upon him would be deemed to have not been discharged and, therefore, he would not be entitled for any relief. For a ready reference, paragraph Nos. 61 and 62 of the said judgment are reproduced herein-below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 804 - S B Sinha - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Sri Lakhan Singh And 2 Others on 12 October, 2018

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Moradabad vs Lakhan Singh and others, reported in 2019 (2) ADJ 454, in which this Court, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others reported in 2013 (10) SCC 324, observed that if the employer wants to deny back-wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting emoluments. For a ready reference paragraph No. 63 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 16 - S Chandra - Full Document
1