Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Sh. Sartaj Ali vs Ms Century Overseas on 13 October, 2023 cites

Shri Vikas Kumar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 20 January, 2023

15. As already discussed, there is nothing on record to suggest that workman remained unemployed for such a long period. It cannot be presumed that workman remained idle for such a long period. Now as far as, the quantum of compensation is concerned paragraph 41 of case titled Vikas Kumar Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, in WP (C) 8692/2018 decided by Hon'ble LC No. 911/2016 Page 10 of 12 High Court of Delhi, is relevant :
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 13 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Junagadh Municipal Corporation vs Dipakbhai Pratapbhai Karamata on 13 July, 2020

10. Issue No. 2. Whether the workman was appointed for fixed tenure w.e.f. 02.08.2013 to 31.01.2014 if so, its effect? OPM It is contention of the management that the workman was appointed for fixed tenure w.e.f. 02.08.2013 to 31.01.2014. On the other hand, the workman has contended that he was appointed in September 2011 and terminated on 10.10.2013. The management intends to take benefit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as per Ld. AR for the management the termination of the service of the workman as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment will not amount to retrenchment. The above exception i.e. Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act has come under judicial scrutiny several times particularly in the cases where the same is restored to arbitrary and only periodic extensions are given to the workman to deny them the protection of Section 20 F of Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Junagadh Municipal Corporation Vs. Dipakbhai Pratapbhai Karamata, CLPA 335 2020 has categorically observed that such excepted categories required a rigorous test. The following observations are relevant:
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - V Nath - Full Document

K.V.Anil Mithra . vs Sree Sankaracharya Univ.Of Sanskrit ... on 27 October, 2021

Hence, it can be seen that Section 2 (oo) (bb) is meant to cover only employment which would be needed for a employer for a specific period or is seasonal in nature. No evidence is on record to show that the nature of work on which the workman was employed was not perennial in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as K.V.Anil Mithra & Anr. Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Anr. CA No. 9068/2014 has held that the benefit of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act is even available to casual LC No. 911/2016 Page 7 of 12 labouror provided the other conditions are fulfilled. The following observations are relevant:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 47 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Rajasthan Cylinders And Containers ... vs U.O.I And Anr on 1 October, 2018

13. As far as reinstatement is concerned, it does not seem to be an ideal option. On this point, this court finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Employers, Management of Central P & D Inst. Ltd Vs. Union of India & Another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 633 in which it was held that "it is not always mandatory to order reinstatement after holding the termination illegal and instead compensation can be granted by the court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 391 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next