Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (2.27 seconds)Taj Services Limited vs Industrial Tribunal-I & Others on 4 October, 1999
A reading of this shows that even if it is demonstrated that the workmen in question are running their own business, and are receiving profits from such business, benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be denied to them; what is required to be seen is whether the workman was employed for remuneration under another employer; and so long as that test is not satisfied, relief under Section 17-B is available. This proposition has also been reaffirmed in Iklash Hussain v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2006 (9) AD (Delhi) 187 where in paragraph 12 thereof, a Division Bench of this Court has specifically affirmed the view of the leaned Single Judge taken in the aforesaid case of Taj Services Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal-I and Ors. (supra).
Shri Iklash Hussain vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 18 October, 2006
This decision was also reaffirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Iklash Hussain v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra).
Ircon International Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 April, 2006
In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner management relies on the decision of this Court in IRCON International Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (2004) I AD (Delhi) 479. In that case, in order to support his claim under Section 17-B of the Act, the workman had averred that he was out of employment since 1983 and that he had secured a passport only in 1998 and that he had been present in India without any interruption ever since 1983 to September, 2000. It was however demonstrated before the Court that the workman had been in possession of a passport much prior to 1998 and that in fact he had stayed abroad for more than two years during that period. In that case, the impugned award had been passed on 15th May, 2000. Although it is true that, in that case, the plea of the respondent that the relief period under Section 17-B was from 20th July, 2000 onwards, i.e., from the date when the impugned award was given, and that since the workman was in employment in Bangkok only from 1993 to 1997, his statement to the contrary in support of his application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act should not be taken to amount to perjury, was rejected by this Court; This came about because that statement was made in response to a specific direction by the Court to disclose the particulars of his stay abroad, if any. In this case, what is before this Court is merely a statement made in cross examination in Hindi by the workman to the effect that he has been in private employment since 1984. In fact, during the same cross examination, he has also simultaneously denied the suggestion that he was gainfully employed. This record of the cross examination does not inspire much confidence. It is also likely that the statements were being made by the workman in Hindi and some error may have crept in while recording their substance in English for the record. Otherwise, somebody who admits to earning Rs. 800/- per month as compared to the salary of Rs. 300/- per month, i.e., nearly three times the salary received from his previous employer, is not likely to deny the suggestion that he is in fact gainfully employed. The fact that the statements made in cross examination by the workman are rather loosely recorded is also borne out by the statement attributed to him to the effect that, "it is incorrect that I am gainfully employed so I have not gone myself for employment." The latter part of the statement i.e., "so I have not gone myself for employment" makes no sense. It is not even proper English. There is also no attempt at clarification. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that what the workman had stated was that he had worked in 1984 and received 800/- rupees per month. This cross examination was carried out nearly nine years later.
Basant Lal vs District Pancyayat Raj Officer And ... on 3 November, 1999
4. Another ground urged by Mr. Sewa Ram is that since the workman never approached the management for reinstatement, therefore he is not entitled to any relief under Section 17-B. To support this contention, he relies on an order dated 19th January, 2006 passed in WP(C) No. 13157/2005 in Sant Lal v. District Collection Officer (supra). I do not see how this order can be of any help to the management for the proposition that the workman had never offered to rejoin the service of the management. In fact, the said petition was filed by the workman to direct implementation of the award. In other words, he was clearly seeking reinstatement by the management and was basing his petition on the ground that the management was refusing to implement the award. The case before this Court is altogether different. Furthermore, a perusal of Section 17-B does not in any way indicate that for the workman to be entitled to the relief under that Section, he must, as a condition precedent, first demonstrate his willingness to rejoin service with the management. Nor has any authority been cited before me by the Counsel for the management in support of this proposition. This contention therefore deserves to be rejected without anything more.
Anil Jain vs Jagdish Chander on 23 July, 1999
64(ix) The court while considering an application under Section 17B of the ID Act cannot go into the merits of the case, the court can only consider whether the requirements mentioned in Section 17B have been satisfied or not and, if it is so, then the court has no option but to direct the employer to pass an order in terms of the statute. It would be immaterial as to whether the petitioner has a very good case on merits Re: 2000 (5) AD Delhi 413 entitled Anil Jain v. Jagdish Chander.
Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Anr vs Ghanshyam on 8 May, 2001
7. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be paid full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule. For calculating wages last drawn, the revision of pay, if any, will also be taken into consideration by the petitioner management. It is further directed that the management shall pay to the workman an amount equal to the minimum wages payable or the last wages drawn by him whichever is higher. Further, keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis Dena Bank v. Kirti Kumar Patel and Regional Authority, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam and decisions of this Court in Ashok Hotel v. Govt. of NCT and Ors. and Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2002 (61) DRJ 521 (DB), in the interest of justice, and to balance equities, such payment shall be subject to the workman filing an affidavit within a period of two weeks giving an undertaking that in the event of this Court deciding the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, he shall be liable to refund to the petitioner, any amount paid to him in terms of the present order over and above the amount he was drawing at the time of his termination.
Management Of Ashok Hotel (A Unit If ... vs Govt. Of The National Capital Territory ... on 28 August, 2006
7. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be paid full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule. For calculating wages last drawn, the revision of pay, if any, will also be taken into consideration by the petitioner management. It is further directed that the management shall pay to the workman an amount equal to the minimum wages payable or the last wages drawn by him whichever is higher. Further, keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis Dena Bank v. Kirti Kumar Patel and Regional Authority, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam and decisions of this Court in Ashok Hotel v. Govt. of NCT and Ors. and Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2002 (61) DRJ 521 (DB), in the interest of justice, and to balance equities, such payment shall be subject to the workman filing an affidavit within a period of two weeks giving an undertaking that in the event of this Court deciding the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, he shall be liable to refund to the petitioner, any amount paid to him in terms of the present order over and above the amount he was drawing at the time of his termination.
Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 10 December, 2001
7. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be paid full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule. For calculating wages last drawn, the revision of pay, if any, will also be taken into consideration by the petitioner management. It is further directed that the management shall pay to the workman an amount equal to the minimum wages payable or the last wages drawn by him whichever is higher. Further, keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis Dena Bank v. Kirti Kumar Patel and Regional Authority, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam and decisions of this Court in Ashok Hotel v. Govt. of NCT and Ors. and Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2002 (61) DRJ 521 (DB), in the interest of justice, and to balance equities, such payment shall be subject to the workman filing an affidavit within a period of two weeks giving an undertaking that in the event of this Court deciding the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, he shall be liable to refund to the petitioner, any amount paid to him in terms of the present order over and above the amount he was drawing at the time of his termination.