Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (2.06 seconds)
M/S Chetan Kumar Nitin Kumar Pvt Ltd vs Presiding Officer / Assistant Labour ... on 19 May, 2025
cites
Section 6B in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 6A in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
M/S. Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs Phool Chand on 18 May, 2018
12. I am sceptical of the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent that restoration/recall application filed on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the provisions enunciated under Rule 16(2) of U.P. Rules, 1957. Section 6-A of the U.P. Act, 1947 denotes about commencing of the award passed by learned tribunal/arbitrator/labour court. Section 6-B denotes that proceeding before the labour court or tribunal shall deem to have commenced on the date of reference of a dispute to adjudication, and such proceeding shall be deemed to have concluded on the date of which award becomes enforceable under Section 6-A of the U.P. Act, 1947. Thus it is an award passed by the learned tribunal/labour court/ arbitrator which is enforceable. However, Rule 16(2) of U.P. Rules, 1957 denotes the limitation for recalling an order as mentioned under Rule 16(1), therefore, limitation of 10 days to file a recall application against the order is not applicable against the award passed under Section 6-A of the Act 1947. Moreover, in the matter of Haryana Suraj Malting (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Industrial Disputes Act being a welfare legislation intended to maintain industrial peace, certain power to do justice have to be conceded to labour court/tribunal, where it will ancillary, intentional or inherent. Award passed denying the opportunity of hearing, when party is able to show sufficient cause within a reasonable time, is in violation of principal of natural justice and is open to challenge on the ground of it being nullity. Therefore, when application for setting aside ex parte award is made at the instance of management, labour court/tribunal has to be balanced equity. Relevant paragraph no. 34 to 37 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:
Devyani Beverages Ltd. Through Its ... vs Labour Court Ii, Deputy Labour ... on 14 September, 2005
15. Assuming arguendo that employer, for any reason, could not participate in the proceeding, subsequently, learned labour court ought to have consider the case of employer as set up in his written statement (paragraph no.7-A) before passing the award on merits. In last paragraph of the award dated 12.02.2020, learned labour court has simply observed that while the employer has not proved his contention, therefore, in this condition, there is no option but to accept the case of the workman. Accordingly, learned labour court has held that the termination order is not proper and illegal, and the employer is liable to pay back wages and reinstate the service of the workman. Claim of the workman, as contended by learned counsel for the respondent, cannot be treated to be correct and allowed as per provisions enunciated under Rule 12(9) of U.P. Rules, 1957. Mere averment in the affidavit does not amount prove of the case. Thus, onus of the workmen to prove his case cannot be discharged for want of proper pleading at the part of the employer unless there is any corroborative evidence on record to bolster the claim of the workman. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Devyani Beverages Ltd. (supra), in the similar circumstances, has held that rejection of the restoration application and passing of an award are illegal. Relevant paragraph nos. 9 to 13 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted herein below:
Nagar Panchayat Kithore Through Its ... vs Prescribed Authority/Peethasin ... on 19 February, 2007
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Nagar Panchayat Kithore, District Meerut vs. Prescribed Authority/Peethasin Adhikari Labour Court reported in [(2007) (3) ADJ 31 (NOS)] and order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Daddys Builders Private Ltd. and another vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another reported in 2021, Law Suits (SC) 79.
M/S Daddys Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Manisha Bhargava on 11 February, 2021
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Nagar Panchayat Kithore, District Meerut vs. Prescribed Authority/Peethasin Adhikari Labour Court reported in [(2007) (3) ADJ 31 (NOS)] and order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Daddys Builders Private Ltd. and another vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another reported in 2021, Law Suits (SC) 79.
Ganga Saran Saini vs Smt. Dropdi Devi And Others on 22 April, 2011
In support of his contention, leaned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has relied upon the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. reported in Laws (All) 2004 8 282 and another order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ganga Saran Saini vs. Smt. Dropdi Devi and Others reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 260.
Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
"9. The Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T.Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25 has observed that "Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside."
The Manager, Reserve Bank Of India vs S. Mani And Ors. on 25 June, 2002
In Manager, Reserve Bank of India Vs. S.Mani 2005 S.C.C. (L&S) 609, the Supreme Court held that "A party to the lis may or may not succeed in its defence. A party to the lis may be filing representations or raising demands, but filing of such representations or raising of demands cannot be treated as circumstances to prove their case."