Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.41 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Phool Chand (D) Through Lrs. on 20 September, 2018
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent invited attention
of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Phool Chand (dead) through legal
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:32:40 :::CIS
13
representatives, (2018)18 Supreme Court Cases 299 and in State of Madhya
Pradesh and others Vs. Anees Khan (2014)8 Supreme Court Cases 900, to
.
State Of M.P.& Ors vs Anees Khan on 7 August, 2014
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent invited attention
of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Phool Chand (dead) through legal
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:32:40 :::CIS
13
representatives, (2018)18 Supreme Court Cases 299 and in State of Madhya
Pradesh and others Vs. Anees Khan (2014)8 Supreme Court Cases 900, to
.
Section 25 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr vs Sri C.S. Sharma on 1 May, 1967
another vs. S.C.Sharma, (2005)2 Supreme Court Cases 363, has held that the
initial burden is on the workman/employee to show that he was not gainfully
employed and in case, he places material in that regard, the employer can bring
on record material to rebut the claim. It is not in dispute that the petitioner while
making claim before the tribunal below has categorically averred in the claim
petition that during termination period he was not gainfully employed. There is no
material worth the name available on record suggestive of the fact that the
respondent was able to demonstrate on record any adversity or hindrance in the
grant of aforesaid relief. Otherwise also, once Tribunal below while answering
the reference had come to a conclusion that action of the employer in
termination the service of the petitioner is bad and dehors the rules, natural
consequence was to order for re-engagement/reinstatement from the date of
termination alongwith back wages. Otherwise also, Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Industrial Tribunal to award consequential
benefits. Section 11-A of the Act is reproduced as under:-
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980
In Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court5, the termination of
the services of the appellants was held to be in
contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act by the Labour Court, but the appellants were denied
the payment of back wages. In appeal, a three-judge
bench of this Court observed: