Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (0.27 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980
In the case of Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court : (1981)ILLJ386SC , this Court has
observed that the plain common sense dictates that the removal
order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to
the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order
has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But
there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or
wholly inequitable vis-`-vis the employer and workmen to direct
reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might
have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the
workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment
elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of
W.P. (C) 14156/2006 Page 24 of 35
discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders.
The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is
impossible because the industry has closed down. The court may
deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place
an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional
cases the court may mould the relief.
Mohan Lal vs Management Of M/S Bharat Electronics ... on 21 April, 1981
"17. This Court has repeatedly held that Sections 25-F(a) and (b) of
the Act are mandatory and non-compliance therewith renders the
retrenchment of an employee nullity--State of Bombay v. Hospital
Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay,
SBI v. N. Sundara Money, Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala,
Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., L. Robert D'Souza v. Southern
Railway, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass,
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar.
Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr vs Ashok Kumar & Anr on 15 February, 2008
11. The aforesaid two decisions of this Court in Mahboob Deepak v.
Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and Anr. (supra) and Ghaziabad
Development Authority and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr. (supra)
have no application to the facts in this case. In the present case, the
respondent has not taken any stand before the Labour Court in his
objections that the post in which the workman was working was not
sanctioned or that his engagement was contrary to statutory rules or
that he was employed elsewhere or that there was no vacancy. In the
absence of any pleadings, evidence or findings on any of these
aspects, the High Court should not have modified the Award of the
Labour Court directing re-instatement of the appellant with 50%
back wages and instead directed payment of compensation of Rs.
50,000/- to the appellant."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State 0F Bombay & Others vs The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha & Others on 29 January, 1960
"17. This Court has repeatedly held that Sections 25-F(a) and (b) of
the Act are mandatory and non-compliance therewith renders the
retrenchment of an employee nullity--State of Bombay v. Hospital
Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay,
SBI v. N. Sundara Money, Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala,
Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., L. Robert D'Souza v. Southern
Railway, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass,
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar.
The Bombay Union Of Journalists And ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961
"17. This Court has repeatedly held that Sections 25-F(a) and (b) of
the Act are mandatory and non-compliance therewith renders the
retrenchment of an employee nullity--State of Bombay v. Hospital
Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay,
SBI v. N. Sundara Money, Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala,
Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., L. Robert D'Souza v. Southern
Railway, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass,
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar.