Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The West Bengal Payment Of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969
Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997
In Dena Bank v. Kirtikumar T. Patel, (1998-I-LLJ-1) the Apex Court held:
Arun Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 September, 2006
29. Keeping in mind the settled legal principles as discussed above, this
Court does no find any reason to interfere with the judgment as
impugned in this appeal as well as the order of the tribunal, as those
are found to be at-tandem with the settled principles of law. Mr. De,
learned senior counsel has very meticulously argued about the
intricacies of the principles of law of evidence, which according to him
have not been followed, in the case by the said fact finding authority. It
is practically needless to mention that none of the issues in the case are
closed as yet since trial is yet to be commenced and those are yet to be
tested in trial, for the final determination thereof, to be culminated in
an Award. Therefore, at the stage of grant of ―interim relief‖ and
particularly taking into the account the beneficial purpose of the said
statutory provision envisaged by the Constitutional Courts time and
again, this Court see no reason to interfere with such factual findings of
the tribunal upheld by the Hon'ble Single Judge, on the basis of the
strong prima facie case been made out. The principles of law as
envisaged by the Supreme Court in Arun Kumar and Others vs Union
of India and Others (2007) 1 SCC 732 (mentioned on behalf of the
appellent) is a settled law. One can see prima facie finding as regards
the same, in the order of the tribunal and that of the Single Judge as
Page 28 of 29
well.
Webel Nicco Electronics Limited vs Mrs. Anima Roy on 18 February, 1997
Similar can be said about the principles as enunciated by this
Court in Webel Nicco Electronics Limited vs Smt. Anima Roy [1997
(1) LLN 866, referred to by the appellant], that there can be no
automatic application of the provision under section 15(2)(b) of the Act.
Having come to a finding regarding existence of a prima facie case, the
two earlier orders of the tribunal and the Court respectively, have not
mutinied with the said well settled principles of law.
B. Venkatamuni vs C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors on 19 October, 2006
A plausible view
of the Hon'ble Single Judge is not subject to reversal in this intra Court
appeal, only to substitute any other view instead of that [per Airport
Authority of India vs Pradip Kumar Banerjee (2025) 4 SCC 111;
B.Venkatamuni vs C.J.Ayodhya Ram Singh (2006) 13 SCC 449, as
referred to by the respondent No.3].
General Electric Coy. Of India vs Fifth Industrial Tribunal Of West ... on 28 May, 1985
22. The Hon'ble Full Bench, in the said judgment (supra)(2001), has also
considered as to whether the amount granted under section 15(2)(b) of
the said Act, can be directed to be refunded or not. Relevant
paragraphs may be quoted as herein bellow:
S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985
In S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, reported in AIR 1985 SC 582,
it has been held that proviso may serve four different purposes namely :--