Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing ... vs Assistant Labour Commissioner ... on 8 June, 2005
cites
Section 29 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Union Of India vs Madhusudan Prasad on 28 October, 2003
7. On behalf of the workman it is submitted that once it is held that the employer had illegally terminated the services of the workman, the normal relief of reinstatement with full back wages is to be applied. The workman has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; reported in 2004(2) ATJ 180; Union of India v. Madhusudan Prasad and Ors. On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that the recall application as filed by the petitioner was legally not maintainable as it was filed after expiry of 30 days of the publication of the award and therefore mere pendency of the said recall application is of no consequence. The award of the Labour Court has to be enforced during the pendency of the said misconceived application. It is further submitted that the award of the Labour Court holding that the caste certificate issued in favour of the workman to be genuine and valid is based on the findings of fact which call for no interference.
Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial ... on 12 December, 1980
Industrial Dispute Case No. 55 of 1999 is restored to its original number. The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur is directed to decide the dispute in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove, preferably within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Tribunal.
E.V.Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 5 November, 2004
11. The right of a person to claim benefits of being a member of : scheduled caste community is dependent upon the caste, to which he belongs, being notified under a. list referable to Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The legal position in that regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in successive judgments including the judgment reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6419 (E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.). Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has also held that courts of law, the State Legislature or the State Government or any of its officers have no competence to add any caste/sub-caste/synonym to the said list as notified under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The legal position has been explained in judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 42348 of 2004, which has since been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Special Appeal No. 89 of 2005. In view of the aforesaid legal position the respondent no. 3, who has , admittedly obtained regular appointment on the basis of his being a member of the scheduled caste, could have claimed relief before the Tribunal only on his satisfying the Tribunal that the workman was actually a member of one of the castes included in the such list as notified under Article 341 of the Constitution of India.
1