Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.46 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 33C in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Chief Engineer, Irrigation Vibhag ... vs Sadaram Muka Sahare on 31 October, 2014
56. After remand, the learned Industrial Court, vide
its common judgment dated 18/06/2012, recorded its
finding that, the complaint is not maintainable. By the said
judgment, also it is held that, the complainant failed to
prove that the respondents have engaged in unfair labour
practice under Items 5, 6 & 9 of the Schedule IV of the
MRTU & PULP Act by not bringing the complainants on
CRTE on completion of five years of continuous service
..B.T.Khapekar..
National Buildings Construction ... vs Pritam Singh Gill And Others on 29 March, 1972
In National Buildings Construction
Corporation Ltd. (supra), on which, reliance is placed by
respondents, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under:-
State Bank Of India vs Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors on 14 November, 2000
Judgment 40 wp3363.20+.odt
(supra), relying on the judgment in the case of State Bank
of India Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey (supra), the similar
view is taken. It is held that, benefit enforceable has to
be a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-
existing right. In the said matter, the claim of the
petitioner for payment of arrears relating to difference of
salary, leave encashment, DA arising out of
recommendations of 5th Pay Commission accepted by the
Labour Court and directed the payment. The High Court
also took the view that the recommendations were binding
on appellant Corporation and therefore, dues were payable.
It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, Section 33-
C(2) was not applicable as there was no pre-
existing benefit or right available to the workman
in the said case.
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Shri Birendra Bhandari on 28 September, 2006
58. After considering the citations relied on and
argument advanced, the learned Industrial Court observed
that, in view of the judgment in M.V. Ghalge (supra), the
argument as advanced by the department that, 240 days is
necessary held cannot be accepted. It is observed that each
complainant has completed five years of service as seen
from the chart filed by the department in the said matter.
However, the learned Industrial Court held that, it cannot
..B.T.Khapekar..
M/S. Agencia E. Sequeira M/S. Fabril ... vs Labour Commissioner & Others on 31 January, 1997
26. The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri
Gosavi placed reliance on Fabril Gasosa (supra), wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 19 as under:-
Deputy Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Umred ... vs Shantaram Ramaji & Ors. on 13 February, 1996
32. The learned counsel for the petitioners also
placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Deputy
Engineer Zilla Parishad (works) Sub-Division, Umred
& Ors. (supra), wherein this Court held that, "the Labour
Court functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act not
being a civil court, Article 137 of Limitation Act not
applicable to the applications under section 33-C(2).
Even though there is no limitation, stale claims
should not be entertained unless delay is
satisfactorily explained. Whether a claim is stale or
not and whether the claimant has furnished satisfactory
..B.T.Khapekar..