Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)
C.Prabhakaran vs The Chairman on 15 July, 2022 cites

Ceat Ltd vs Murphy India Employees Union on 25 April, 2006

''9.We are of the view that the ailment suffered by the employee cannot be termed as ''defect'' rendering him unfit for absorption under Clause 3 of the Settlement dated July 8, 1978. The intention of the parties to the settlement has to be gathered by the words used by the parties to the settlement. In doing so, the parties must be presumed to have used the word in its strict and academical sense. Having regard to the context in which it was used, even if there is any ambiguity, it is the duty of the Court to look at all parts of the settlement to ascertain what was really intended by the parties. In this context, the word ''defect'' in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/38 W.P.Nos.8685 and 8275/2018 settlement has to be construed not technically, but liberally so as to advance the right to livelihood. When an employee was disabled by a disease to perform the duties of his post, the employer should make all attempts to see the final result and make allowances to get treatment since it promotes reasonableness in employment, otherwise, it amounts to taking away the employment construing in a technical sense in a manner not reasonable, fair and just.'' and [b] the decision reported in 2006 [9] SCC 478 in the matter of CEAT Limited Vs. Murphy India Employees Union, where he relies on the following paragraphs:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 14 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Workman, Represented By The General ... vs General Manager, India Cements Limited ... on 7 August, 1998

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/38 W.P.Nos.8685 and 8275/2018 (49)As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we must see the situation or the necessity which triggered the parties to go for a 18[1] Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act. (50)In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon two decisions as referred to above, i.e., [a] the decision reported in 1999 [2] LLJ 1 in the matter of Workman rep.by the General Secretary, India Cements Employees' Union, Sankari West Vs. General Manager, India Cements Limited, Sankari West and Another, where he relies on the following paragraph:-
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next