Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.50 seconds)Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996
"We
are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the
order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies
on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies
on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies
the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service
of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination;
in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H
thereof he may not have to establish the said fact. See: Central Bank
of India v. S. Satyam, Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah, SBI v.
Rakesh Kumar Tewari and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai.""
State Of Gujarat vs Ramesh Mopabhai Rathod on 6 August, 2003
"4. It
is necessary to note that initially, Labour Court has passed an award
in Reference No.358 of 2003, dated 14.2.2007, where Labour Court has
granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 25% back wages
of interim period in favour of respondent. The service of respondent
was terminated on 1.5.2003. The award passed by Labour Court, as
referred above, was challenged in SCA No.19621 of 2007 wherein this
Court has passed an order on 12.12.2007, which is quoted as under :
Samishta Dube vs City Board, Etawah And Anr on 26 February, 1999
"We
are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the
order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies
on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies
on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies
the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service
of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination;
in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H
thereof he may not have to establish the said fact. See: Central Bank
of India v. S. Satyam, Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah, SBI v.
Rakesh Kumar Tewari and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai.""
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010
7. The
contention which has been raised by learned AGP Mr. Sharma cannot be
accepted that in case only 240 days is established by workman, then,
Section 25G and 25H of ID Act is made applicable otherwise not.
Recently, this aspect has been considered by Apex Court in case of
Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation reported
in 2010(1) Scale 613.