Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs Ramachandra Bhimayya Polkam on 15 October, 1959
We may now refer to certain cases which have been relied upon by either side. The main case on which learned counsel for the respondents relies is Premier Automobiles Limited Vs. Ramachandra Bhimayya Polkam and another (1960-I LLJ 443). In that case, the Bombay High Court held that the application should be made before the action has been taken by the employer and that it was not correct to infer from the use of the word "approval" in the proviso that the legislature intended that such an application should be made after the action had been taken. The High Court has pointed out that there is apparent conflict between the first and last part of the proviso and the view it took was with the object of harmonizing the two parts.
Indian Extractions (Private) Ltd. vs Vyas (A.V.) And Anr. on 29 August, 1960
This view has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in Indian Extractions (Private) Limited Vs. A.V.Vyas, Conciliation Officer (AIR (1961) Guj.22) though with some hesitation. With respect we feel that it is not necessary to read the words "action taken" in the proviso as equal to "action proposed to be taken" as the Bombay High Court has done and that the apparent conflict between the two parts of the proviso can be harmonized, as we have indicated above, leaving it open to the employer to dismiss or discharge the employee and at the same time pay him the necessary wages and make an application to the authority concerned for approval of the action taken.
Metal Press Works Ltd. vs Deb (H.R.) And Ors. on 1 June, 1961
The contrary view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Metal Press Works Limited Vs. Deb(N.R) and others (1962-I LLJ 75) where it has been held that payment of wages and the making of the application should be simultaneous with the order of discharge or dismissal. It has further been pointed out that
: the word "simultaneously" must of course be taken reasonably and a motion of split-second timing should not be imported. It should be done at once and without delay."
Management Of Karnataka Agro ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 15 October, 1984
10.On the question of payment of wages, subsequent to the Supreme Court, several High Courts have taken a definite stand on the question of shortfall in the payment of one month pay. It is necessary to refer to one or two cases. The High Court of Karnataka vide its judgment in Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., vs. Industrial Tribunal and another reported in 1984 (64) FJR 179 has held that in the offering of one month pay even if the increment accrued to the workman was not included, then it would not amount to the compliance under section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Strawboard Manufacturing Co vs Gobind on 6 March, 1962
9.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Strawboard Manufacturing Company Vs. Gobind reported in 1962 Vol (I) LLJ 420 = AIR 1962 SC 1500 had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court had explained the proviso to Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act. In pages 425 and 426 of the Report it was observed as follows:-
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
1