Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Nedungadi Bank Ltd vs K.P. Madhavankutty And Ors on 28 January, 2000
In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. (supra), a delay of 7 years was held to be fatal and disentitled to workmen to any relief.
Messrs. Shalimar Works Limited vs Their Workmen on 8 May, 1959
A delay of 4 years in raising the dispute after even re-employment of the most of the old workmen was held to be fatal in Shalimar Works Limited v. Their Workmen (supra).
M/S. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg..Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, ... on 31 March, 2003
In S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka the position was reiterated as follows (at para 17):
Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Assistant Engineer, C.A.D., Kota vs Dhan Kunwar on 5 July, 2006
The gist and essence of the matter stands summarized in the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest pronouncements in the cases of Dhan Kunwar and Sham Lal (supra) that no formula of universal application could be laid down in relation to the delay in seeking reference; and it would depend upon facts of each individual case. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that irrespective of delay and irrespective of everything, the Government is bound to refer every case for adjudication, thus, remains untenable.
Ratan Chandra Sammanta And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 May, 1993
In Ratan Chandar Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1993 AIR SCW 2214(supra), 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 for any relief. Although the High Court has opined that there was a delay of 7 to 9 years in raising the dispute before the Tribunal but we find the High Court factually not correct. The employment of the appellants was terminated sometime in 1985-86 or 1986-87.
Daily Rated Casual Labour ... vs Union Of India & Others on 27 October, 1987
Pursuant to the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Employees under P&T Department v. Union of India (supra), the department was formulating a scheme to accommodate casual labourers and the appellants were justified in awaiting the outcome thereof. On 16-1-1990 they were refused to be accommodated in the scheme. On 28-12-1990 they initiated the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act followed by conciliation proceedings and then the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. We do not think that the appellants deserve to be non-suited on the ground of delay.
Ram Bharos Kharwad vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 23 November, 2005
7. Learned Counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in Ram Bharos Kharwad v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : 2006 (1) WLC 317 and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka : .
1