Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.27 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Ajaib Singh vs Sirhind Coop. ... on 8 April, 1999
"Learned counsel for the appellant strongly
relied on the reasoning of the Labour Court and
contended that the view of the High Court would
not advance the cause of justice. Learned
counsel for the respondent relied upon two
decisions of this Court in Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind
Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society
Ltd. and Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. SEB to
contend that there is no period of limitation
prescribed under the Industrial Court even
belatedly and the Labour Court or the Industrial
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:07:59 :::
wp.4813.08.jud 16
Tribunal can properly mould the relief by
refusing or awarding part-payment of back
wages. It is no doubt true that in appropriate
cases, as held by this Court in the aforesaid two
decisions, such steps could be taken by the
Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the
case may be, where there is no such dispute as
to relationship between the parties as employer
and employee. In cases where there is a serious
dispute, or doubt in such relationship and
records of the employer become relevant, the
long delay would come in the way of
maintenance of the same. In such circumstances
to make them available to a Labour Court or the
Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute
appropriately will be impossible. A situation of
that nature would render the claim to have
become stale. That is exactly the situation
arising in this case. In that view of the matter,
we think the two decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel have no application to the case
on hand. Proceeding on the facts of the case we
think the High Court is wrong in having
interfered with the award made by the Tribunal.
The order made by the High Court in the writ
proceedings, therefore, shall stand set aside and
the award made by the Labour Court shall stand
restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Balbir Singh vs Punjab Roadways & Anr. on 8 December, 2000
In Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways as
regards Ajaib Singh this Court observed: (SCC
pp.134-35, paras 5-6)
"5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
strenuously urged that the Tribunal committed
error in denying relief to the workman merely on
the ground of delay. The learned counsel
submitted that in industrial dispute delay should
not be taken as a ground for denying relief to
the workman if the order/ orders under
challenge are found to be unsustainable in law.
Ratan Chandra Sammanta And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 May, 1993
In Ratan Chandra Sammanta vs. Union of India it
was held that a casual labourer retrenched by
the employer deprives himself of remedy
available in law by delay itself; lapse of time
results in losing the remedy and the right as
well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has
resulted in material evidence relevant to
adjudication being lost and rendered not
available. However, we do not think that the
delay in the case at hand has been so culpable
as to disentitle the appellants to any relief.