Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.31 seconds)
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Gulab Singh on 24 November, 2015 cites

Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd vs Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. ... on 7 September, 1978

Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 517 - D A Desai - Full Document

Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980

"Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-à-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi (1980) 4 SCC 443 W.P.(C) 1521/2012 Page 7 of 13 industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted." (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 415 - O C Reddy - Full Document

P.G.I.Of M.E. & Research, Chandigarh vs Raj Kumar on 2 November, 2000

20. The principle laid down in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra) was reiterated in P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar (2001) 2 SCC 54. That case makes an interesting reading. The respondent had worked as helper for 11 months and 18 days. The termination of his service was declared by Labour Court, Chandigarh as retrenchment and was invalidated on the ground of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a corollary, the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. However, only 60% back wages were awarded. The learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court did not find any error apparent in the award of the Labour Court but ordered payment of full back wages. The two Judge Bench of this Court noted the guiding principle laid down in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited and observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 139 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963

Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. As regards the decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. be it noted that though broad guidelines, as regards payment of back wages, have been laid down by this Court but having regard to the peculiar facts of the matter, this Court directed payment of 75% back wages only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1424 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Hindustan Motors Ltd vs Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya & Anr on 12 July, 2002

7. After taking note of various other decisions rendered in Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya (2002) 6 SCC 41; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar (2003) 4 SCC 579; M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bae (2003) 6 SCC 141; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S.C. Sharma (2005) 2 SCC 363; General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 3, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479; The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. P. Jayaram Reddy, (2009) 2 SCC 681; 1, Novartis India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others, (2009) 3 SCC 124; Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, (2009) 15 SCC 327, the proposition which can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions was summarised as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 232 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 27 February, 2003

7. After taking note of various other decisions rendered in Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya (2002) 6 SCC 41; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar (2003) 4 SCC 579; M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bae (2003) 6 SCC 141; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S.C. Sharma (2005) 2 SCC 363; General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 3, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479; The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. P. Jayaram Reddy, (2009) 2 SCC 681; 1, Novartis India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others, (2009) 3 SCC 124; Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, (2009) 15 SCC 327, the proposition which can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions was summarised as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 425 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And Anr. vs S.C. Sharma on 11 January, 2005

7. After taking note of various other decisions rendered in Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya (2002) 6 SCC 41; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar (2003) 4 SCC 579; M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bae (2003) 6 SCC 141; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S.C. Sharma (2005) 2 SCC 363; General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 3, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479; The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. P. Jayaram Reddy, (2009) 2 SCC 681; 1, Novartis India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others, (2009) 3 SCC 124; Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, (2009) 15 SCC 327, the proposition which can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions was summarised as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 317 - A Pasayat - Full Document

General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs Rudhan Singh on 14 July, 2005

7. After taking note of various other decisions rendered in Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya (2002) 6 SCC 41; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar (2003) 4 SCC 579; M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bae (2003) 6 SCC 141; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S.C. Sharma (2005) 2 SCC 363; General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 3, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479; The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. P. Jayaram Reddy, (2009) 2 SCC 681; 1, Novartis India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others, (2009) 3 SCC 124; Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, (2009) 15 SCC 327, the proposition which can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions was summarised as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 543 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 Next