Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)
Against The Judgment In Wp(C) ... vs Appellants/ on 9 September, 2020 cites

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak & Anr. on 26 November, 1993

In fact, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), when piece rated workers claimed the pay of regular employees on the ground that they were doing the very same work, Apex Court held that such an adjudication cannot be undertaken by the Labour Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. In the case on hand, Ext.P18 reflects monthly wages to be paid to regular employees, and their entitlement for the same would arise only if they were working as regular employees and not on part time basis. Under such circumstances, the Labour court was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Consequently, the judgment of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 713 - A Kumar - Full Document

Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs Suresh Chand And Anr on 21 February, 1978

"10. It is well settled that the workman can proceed under Section 33-C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint under Section 33-A or on a reference under Section 10 that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and has set aside that order and reinstated the workman. This Court in the case of Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Suresh Chand [(1978) 2 SCC 144 :] held that a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of WA No.769/2020 -:9:- money due to a workman from the employer, or, if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. Proceeding further, this Court held that the right to the money which is sought to be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the industrial workman, and his employer".
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 433 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Mangananese Ore (India) Ltd vs Chandi Lal Saha And Ors on 1 November, 1990

9. As far as entitlement of minimum wages is concerned, when there is no dispute raised by the management with reference to the employment, it is well settled that the entitlement of minimum wages could be considered in a petition WA No.769/2020 -:10:- u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. [Managanese Ore (India) Ltd v. Chandi Lal Saha - (AIR 1991 SC 520)], Deepak (supra), Hindi Prachar Press (supra) and G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd (supra)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 44 - K Singh - Full Document

Central Inland Water Transport ... vs The Workmen & Anr on 23 April, 1974

After referring to judgments in Central Bank of India's case (supra), Bombay Gas Company Ltd. (supra), Chief Mining Engineer, M/s East India Coal Company Ltd., (supra) and Central Inland Water Transport WA No.769/2020 -:12:- Corporation Ltd. v. Workmen [(1974) 4 SCC 696], it was held that the claim of the workmen who were all daily rated/casual workers to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workers had not been earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the employer without which the stage for computation of that benefit could not reach. In so far as the principle of equal pay for equal work was disputed, without an adjudication of the said dispute, there could be no occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to attract S.33C(2).
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 340 - D G Palekar - Full Document
1   2 Next