Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak & Anr. on 26 November, 1993
2. The decision in MCD v. Ganesh Razak was challenged by MCD by way of an SLP before Supreme Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in MCD v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. The Supreme Court observed as under:
A.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr vs B.S. David Paul on 1 February, 2006
In A.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. B.S. David Paul (2006) 1 LLJ 999, the Supreme Court held that the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act can entertain only those claims which arise out of a pre-existing benefits.
A.P.S.R.T.C. And Anr vs S. Narsagoud on 15 January, 2003
The principle of law on point; is no more res integra. This Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. v. S. Narsagoud , succinctly crystallized the principle of law in the judgment
We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. In our opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of unauthorized absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Charanjit Singh & Ors., Etc. Etc on 5 October, 2005
In (2006) 1 LLJ 431 State of Haryana and Ors. v. Charanjit Singh and Ors. the issue before the Supreme Court was of equal pay for equal work. The Supreme Court surveyed the earlier decisions and noted:
Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003
In Tarun Roy's case (supra) an argument that relief should be given as in an earlier matter objection was not taken was rejected in the following terms at pp. 426 & 427:
Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... vs N.T.C. (Wbab & O) Ltd.Employees Union & ... on 14 October, 2003
In Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, National Textiles Corporation Ltd. v. N.T.C. (WBAB & O) Ltd. Employees Union , this Court, held at p.1106 of LLJ.
Orissa University Of Agriculture & ... vs Manoj K. Mohanty on 17 April, 2003
In Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty 2003-II-LLJ-968 this Court noticed at p.970:
State Bank Of India And Anr vs M.R. Ganesh Babu And Ors on 16 April, 2002
13. Yet, in another decision in State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, while dealing with the same principle, has expressed that:
State Of Maharashtra vs Digambar on 12 May, 1995
They admittedly, being not, the contention of the appellants could not be rejected, non filing of an appeal, in any event, would not be a ground for refusing to consider a matter on its own merits State of Maharashtra v. Digambar .