Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd vs Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. ... on 7 September, 1978
"19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the law as laid down by three Judges Bench in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., 1979 (2) SCC 80 and the judgment rendered by another three Judges Bench in Surendra Kumar Verma vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, 1980 (4) SCC 443 and came to the conclusion that the law has been developed further. Reliance cannot be placed on a strait-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages.
Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980
"19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the law as laid down by three Judges Bench in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., 1979 (2) SCC 80 and the judgment rendered by another three Judges Bench in Surendra Kumar Verma vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, 1980 (4) SCC 443 and came to the conclusion that the law has been developed further. Reliance cannot be placed on a strait-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages.
J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) has however observed that the observations made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right, is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judges Benches referred to above, and cannot be treated as good law.
Chandra Bhan Singh vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 6 January, 2003
10. This Court has in its judgment rendered on 22.9.2017 in Writ-A No. 41804 of 2014 (Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others) considered the law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26, which are being quoted herein below:-
North East Karnataka Road Transport ... vs M.Nagangouda on 9 January, 2007
19. Sri Jai Singh, learned standing counsel has also relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. M. Nagangouda 2007 (10) SCC 765, wherein the Supreme Court has considered whether gainful employment would also include self employment wherefrom some income is generated.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Brijendra Prakash Kulshrestha Son Of ... vs Director Of Education, Deputy Director ... on 1 February, 2007
11. A Division Bench of this Court in Brijendra Prakash Kulshrestha Vs. Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad & others 2007 (3) ADJ 1 (DB) supra) considered the applicability of "no work no pay" and it has been held that an employer cannot deny salary to an employee, who is always ready and willing to work, but was not allowed to do so by an Act or omission directly attributable to the employer.
Bhupal Singh Yadav vs Chairman Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kchetra ... on 19 December, 2017
3. Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Siddhartha Khare at the time of argument of the case stated that earlier the writ-petitioner had been dismissed from service on 9.10.1999, without holding any enquiry in exercise of power under Rule 8-2(B) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Sub-Ordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1991). This order was confirmed in Appeal and Revision on 3.1.2000 and 29.12.2004 respectively and aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 55846 of 2005 (Bhupat Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others).
1