Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.39 seconds)The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961
Section 13 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Jugal Kishore And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 15 April, 2009
Another relevant Division Bench judgment of this
Court was Jugal Kishore v. State of Haryana and
others, 2009(3) SCT 433. Thus, the learned Labour
Court rightly held that the respondent-workman was
having a pre-existing claim and it was also covered
in his favour vide above-said judgments of this
Court."
Section 19 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana & Anr vs Anirudh Kumar (D) Th:Lrs on 11 February, 2008
Per contra, learned counsel for the workman drew
our attention to the provisions of Section 26 of the 1961 Act to
contend that where an adult motor transport worker works for
more than eight hours on any day or is required to work on
any day of rest, he shall be entitled to the wages at the rate of
twice of his ordinary wages in respect of the overtime work. He
submits that for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2009,
the workman was drawing wages in the pay scale of Rs.3120-
6200 and was paid overtime wages in terms of the provisions
of Section 26 of the 1961 Act. Further, pursuant to the
revision of pay scales in July, 2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to
Rs.5910-20200 + 2400 Grade Pay + DA, the workman was
paid arrears of difference of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to June,
RAJAN
2014.11.13 16:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
LPA No.891 of 2014(O&M) -12-
2009, calculated on the basis of the revised pay scale. Still
further, w.e.f. July, 2009, workman was being paid overtime
wages on the revised pay scale in terms of the provisions of
Section 26 of the 1961 Act. That being so, he contends that
there could be no justification to deny the workman the
difference of overtime wages on the basis of revised pay scale
w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to June, 2009. He further maintains that
overtime wages were very much a part of the wages being
drawn by the workman under the 1961 Act. Reliance is placed
upon a decision of a Single Bench and a Division Bench of
this court that were relied upon even by the labour court and
referred to by the learned Single Judge in his decision. Before
we proceed further, we may point out that Division Bench
judgment in Anirudh's case (supra) was assailed by way of
SLP, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was
dismissed, as it suffered from inordinate delay. However, the
question of law was kept open.
Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002
Further, it is the settled principle of law that
peculiar facts of each case are to be examined,
considered and appreciated first, before applying
any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes,
difference of one circumstance or additional fact
can make the world of difference, as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Padmausundra Rao and
another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3)
SCC 533).