Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.65 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 29 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
H.M.T. Limited, Watch Factory Iv vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 21 January, 1998
In this context, Mr. Mishra has placed reliance upon the decisions in the matters of Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S Trust v. V.R Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607; of The Panthar Power Kamgar Sanghatana, Aurangabhad v. Y.C Jahalani, Executive Director & Ors., reported in 1998 (1) CLR 444; of H.M.T Limited v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, reported in 1998 (1) LLN 922; of S.S Anand & Others v. Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta (Regd.) Bangalore & Another, reported in 1998 (3) LLN 259; of Firestone Employees Union v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1998 (II) CLR 799; and of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Harsh Vardhan Agarwal & Others v. Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research & Others, reported in 1998 Lab.IC 2544. In light of the aforesaid citations, Mr. Mishra submitted that writ can be issued against the private persons or Company while exercising powers under Art. 226 by the High Court, and therefore, this petition be entertained and reliefs prayed for by the petitioner be granted in terms of the settlement.
S.S. Anand And Others vs The Management Of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya ... on 27 January, 1998
In this context, Mr. Mishra has placed reliance upon the decisions in the matters of Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S Trust v. V.R Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607; of The Panthar Power Kamgar Sanghatana, Aurangabhad v. Y.C Jahalani, Executive Director & Ors., reported in 1998 (1) CLR 444; of H.M.T Limited v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, reported in 1998 (1) LLN 922; of S.S Anand & Others v. Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta (Regd.) Bangalore & Another, reported in 1998 (3) LLN 259; of Firestone Employees Union v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1998 (II) CLR 799; and of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Harsh Vardhan Agarwal & Others v. Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research & Others, reported in 1998 Lab.IC 2544. In light of the aforesaid citations, Mr. Mishra submitted that writ can be issued against the private persons or Company while exercising powers under Art. 226 by the High Court, and therefore, this petition be entertained and reliefs prayed for by the petitioner be granted in terms of the settlement.
Firestone Employees Union vs State Of Gujarat on 19 August, 1998
In this context, Mr. Mishra has placed reliance upon the decisions in the matters of Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S Trust v. V.R Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607; of The Panthar Power Kamgar Sanghatana, Aurangabhad v. Y.C Jahalani, Executive Director & Ors., reported in 1998 (1) CLR 444; of H.M.T Limited v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, reported in 1998 (1) LLN 922; of S.S Anand & Others v. Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta (Regd.) Bangalore & Another, reported in 1998 (3) LLN 259; of Firestone Employees Union v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1998 (II) CLR 799; and of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Harsh Vardhan Agarwal & Others v. Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research & Others, reported in 1998 Lab.IC 2544. In light of the aforesaid citations, Mr. Mishra submitted that writ can be issued against the private persons or Company while exercising powers under Art. 226 by the High Court, and therefore, this petition be entertained and reliefs prayed for by the petitioner be granted in terms of the settlement.
Vasantika R. Dalia vs Baroda Municipal Corporation on 5 May, 1997
5. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate submitted that the respondent no. 1 is not giving any benefit to the petitioner workman in terms of the settlement dated 18th March, 1999 on the ground that the petitioner was not in service and he has not put in continuous service of one year upto 30.9.1997, and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner workman praying that the respondents be directed to grant the benefit under the settlement arrived at between the Corporation and the Union and also direct the respondents to pay wages from the date of Award dated 25th May, 1997 till the date of payment of voluntary retirement benefits. It has been contended by Mr. Mishra that once the termination order dated 13th November, 1988 has been set-aside by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar under its Award dated 27th May, 1997 and granted reinstatement to the petitioner in service with continuity and 75% of the backwages for the interim period, and the learned Single Judge of this Court while partly allowing the Special Civil Application No. 2339 of 1988 had directed the respondent no. 1 Corporation to reinstate the petitioner workman in service without backwages, it is the duty of the Corporation to treat the petitioner in continuous service. According to Mr. Mishra, reinstatement includes continuity in service. Mr. Mishra in support of this argument has placed reliance upon one decision of this Court reported in Vasantika R. Dulia v. Baroda Municipal Corporation [1998 (1) CLR 32] wherein it has been held that if the Labour Court has been granted reinstatement which includes continuity of service, then the workman is entitled to the benefit of fixation of salary for interim period notionally and is also entitled to increments notionally for the interim period. So, in short, it is held that reinstatement includes continuity of service of interim period, and therefore, according to Mr. Mishra, the Labour Court has passed Award on 27.3.1977 and it was published by the Labour Commissioner on 31st July, 1997, and according to the terms of Settlement, the settlement covers only permanent and regular workman and also the supervisory staff who were on the muster roll of the Corporation as on 1st October, 1997 and continued as such till 31st December, 1998. He further submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner was working as a permanent and regular employee of the respondent no. 1 and because of the order made by the Labour Court, he was entitled to reinstatement and also entitled to full salary as per the directions given by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2339 of 1998 from the date of publication of Award. Therefore, according to Mr. Mishra, the petitioner is deemed to be in service with effect from 31st July, 1997, the date on which the Award has been published by the Labour Commissioner, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said settlement. Mr. Mishra further submitted that as per the Item No. 4 of the said Settlement, when the reinstatement has been granted by the Labour Court then continuity of service has to be there, and therefore, petitioner is also satisfying the condition of putting in continuous service of one year ending on 30.9.1997. Therefore, all the conditions of settlement have been satisfied by the petitioner and inspite of that fact, the respondent no. 1 is not giving benefit of the said settlement.