Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.30 seconds)
R.Sabapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 1 July, 2011 cites

The Punjab Land Development And ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. ... on 28 September, 2000

"4.In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court1 the Constitution Bench considered the scope of the word 'retrenchment' defined by Section 2(oo) and held in para 71 at page 716 that "analysing the definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo) we find that termination by the employer of the service of a workman would not otherwise have covered the cases excluded in clauses (a) and (b) namely, voluntary retirement and retirement on reaching the stipulated age of retirement or on the grounds of continued ill health. There would be no violational element of the employer. Their express exclusion implies that those would otherwise have been included".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 383 - M S Gill - Full Document

The President, Srirangam Co-Operative ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 15 March, 1996

42.In 1996 (1) LLN 647 (Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Srirangam Vs. Labour Court, Madurai and another), the First Bench of this Court, referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Santosh Gupta Vs. State Bank of Patiala reported in 1980 (3) SCC 340, wherein the Honourable Apex Court held that termination for having not qualified in the examination would amount to retrenchment as per Section 2(oo) of I.D. Act and as Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act was not complied with, the termination was set aside and held that irrespective of the nature of employment, the workman is entitled to protection under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. In this regard, the relevant passage from para 12 of the judgment in 1996 (1) LLN 647 is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Sita Ram & Ors vs Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training ... on 5 March, 2008

"The decision in the case on Mohan Lal does not lay down that if a workman had worked for more than 240 days in any number of years and if during the year of his termination, he had worked for the said number of days, he would not be entitled to the benefit of S.25 B. The question with which we are concerned was not under consideration in Mohan Lal case. If the view-point propounded by the management is accepted, then in every year the workman would be required to complete more than 240 days. If in any one year the employer gives him actual work for less than 240 days, the service of the workman can be terminated without compliance of S.6N of the UP Act, despite his having worked for number of years and for more than 240 days in each year except the last. Such an intention cannot be attributed to the UP Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 413 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next