Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)
U.P. Small Industries Corporation ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) ... on 6 May, 2005
cites
State Of U.P. And Anr. vs Rajendra Singh Butola And Anr. on 8 December, 1999
21. In the instant case also the workman worked for years together and the Labour Court has awarded him only 50% back wages with continuity of service and other benefits. This direction of the Labour Court in the award is in consonance with the apex court decision rendered in State of U.P. v. Rajendra Singh Butola (supra) . It has been laid down that the burden of proof would be required only if the pleading is there.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr vs Kaushal Kishore Shukla on 11 January, 1991
Similarly in the decision rendered in the State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 691, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, the workman was appointed on ad hoc basis and the facts are clearly distinguishable. This case also does not apply to the instant writ petitions.
Delhi Development Horticulture ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors on 4 February, 1992
The other case relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is Delhi Development Horticulture Employees" Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors., (1992 4 S.C.C. 99. In the instant writ petitions as in the Delhi Development Horticulture Employees" Union the Labour Court has not directed for regularization of services whereas in the present case the Labour Court has directed for regularization of services of the workman.
Mangt.Of Madurantakam Co-Op.Sugar ... vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005
In the apex court decision rendered in Management of Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan, 2005 (104) F.L.R. 1229 it has been held that the Labour Court is final court of findings of fact. Since there was material evidence regarding continuous working of the workman before the Labour Court, the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution would not go into the questions of facts decided on the basis of evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court. The question of burden of proof would only come up when there are pleadings in this regard and not otherwise. Suffice it to say that after it was proved beyond doubt from the joint inspection report of the records of the petitioners that the workman had continuously discharged work from 5.12.1988 to 31.12.1994. The petitioners have no case that, the workman had not actually worked 240 days.
Haryana Power Generation Corporation ... vs P.O., Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour ... on 3 April, 2003
In the other case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. P.O. Labour Court, Allahabad (Supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners direction of creation of post was given by the Labour Court which is not the case here in the instant writ petitions and therefore the decision rendered in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. P.O. Labour Court, Allahabad (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners does not apply to the instant cases.
State Of Haryana And Anr vs Tilak Raj And Ors on 14 July, 2003
In State of Haryana and Anr. v. Tilak Raj and Ors. (Supra) , it is not the case of the employers that the workman was not discharging the duties of a regular employee.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996
He has not sought parity in employment and as such the case of State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 S.C.C. 77, would not apply to the instant case. This case was regarding parity in employment/regularization of a daily rated workman on the principle of "Equal pay for equal work". It was not so in the instant writ petitions, hence this case does not apply to the fact its in the instant writ petitions. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence found that the workman has an existing right to wages given to a regular employee.
Section 6N in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India And Anr vs M.R. Ganesh Babu And Ors on 16 April, 2002
In the case of State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu and Ors., (2002) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1680 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, the matter was with regard to "Equal pay for equal work" which is not the case here in the instant writ petitions. The instant writ petitions relate to termination of services of the workman.