Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.64 seconds)Bharat Singh vs Management Of New Delhi Tuberculosis ... on 4 April, 1986
10. The three ingredients, which are required to
be fulfilled to attract the applicability of Section 17B of
the Act are: (i) the Labour Court should have directed
reinstatement of the workman; (ii) the employer
should have preferred proceedings against such an
award in the High Court or in the Supreme Court; (iii)
the workman should not have been employed in any
establishment during such period. [See: BHARAT
SINGH V. MANAGEMENT OF NEW DELHI
TUBERCULOSIS CENTRE7]. Thus, if the conditions
precedent for invoking Section 17B of the Act are
7
AIR 1986 SC 84
10
fulfilled, the Court has to direct compliance of the
provisions of Section 17B of the Act.
Dwarka Prasad vs Dwarka Das Saraf on 11 August, 1975
In DWARKA PRASAD v. DWARKA DAS8, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that a proviso must be
limited to the subject matter of enacting clause and
8
AIR 1975 SC 1750
12
not being a separate or independent enactment. It was
further held that 'words are dependent on the
principal enacting words, to which they are tacked as
a proviso, and cannot be read as divorced from their
context'.
Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 10 May, 1991
In TRIBHOVANDAS HARIBHAI TAMBOLI v.
GUJARAT REVENUE TIRBUNAL AND ORS.9, it has
been held that it is a cardinal rule of interpretation
that a proviso to particular provision of a statute only
embraces the field which is covered by main proviso.
Therefore, the word 'employed' used in the proviso has
to be read in the context of the expression 'employed
in any establishment' used in the main provision.
Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs Delhi Administration Through ... on 27 September, 1984
13. Thus, it is evident that self employment
does not amount to an employment in an
10
AIR 1984 SC 1805
14
establishment. However, subsequently a two Judge
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court without referring
to the decision of a coordinate bench in RAJINDER
KUMAR KINDRA supra held as under:
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
North East Karnataka Road Transport ... vs M.Nagangouda on 9 January, 2007
In view of divergence of
opinions of two division benches, a full bench of Delhi
High Court in DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
supra inter alia held that an order rejecting an
application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is an
award and held that provisions of Section 17B of the
Act would be applicable in a case where the
management has assailed the validity of the order
passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act subject to the
conditions stated in Section 17B of the Act itself.
11
Similar view has been taken by a division bench of
High Court of Gujarat as well as High Court of
Rajasthan. We are in respectful agreement with the
view taken by the aforesaid full bench decisions and
hold that provisions of Section 17B of the Act are
applicable in a case where the management has
assailed the validity of the order passed under Section
33(2)(b) of the Act subject to the conditions stated in
Section 17B of the Act itself. Accordingly, the first
issue is answered in the affirmative.
The Companies Act, 1956
Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997
In DENA BANK v. KIRTI
KUMAR T. PATEL6, it has been held that object of the
5
AIR 1986 SC 84
6
(1999) 2 SCC 106
9
provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship
that is caused to a workman due to delay in
implementation of the award. It has further been held
that payment, which is required to be made by the
employer to the workman is in the nature of
subsistence allowance.
1