Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 3 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965
Section 15 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Workman Of M/S. Binny Ltd vs The Management Of Binny Ltd. & Another on 22 August, 1985
The learned Counsel, in support of his submission, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Binny Limited v. Management of Binny Limited and Anr.,
Section 1 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Alloy Steel Project vs The Workmen on 2 February, 1971
4. Sri Joshua H. Samuel, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants challenging the correctness of the impugned order submitted that the learned Single Judge on an erroneous interpretation placed by him on Sections 3 and 16 of the Bonus Act, has taken the view that the workmen Union are entitled for payment of bonus for the period in question. He pointed out that since on consideration of the evidence on record the Tribunal has found that the 2nd appellant started the production only during the year 1983-84 and was a separate entity having separate profit and loss account and balance-sheet, the same is exempted from payment of bonus in terms of proviso given to Section 3 and Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 16 of the Bonus Act, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in law in passing the impugned order. It is his submission that proviso given to Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the said Act has no application to the facts of the present case. Sri Joshua, in support of his submission, relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of The Workmen of HMT and Anr. v. Presiding Officer, National Tribunal, Calcutta and Ors., , in the case of Alloy Steel Project v. Workmen,
Workmen Of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. ... vs Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. And Ors. on 9 February, 2001
1. The appellants in this appeal have called in question the correctness of the order dated 9th February, 2001 made in Writ Petition No. 19893 of 1994 by the learned Single Judge of this Court Workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Specialised Watch Case Division v. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and Ors., wherein, he has taken the view that the workers of the HMT Limited, Specialised Watch Case Division, i.e., the 2nd appellant, are entitled to receive bonus from the appellants for the year 1983-84 onwards.
1