Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)Shri Iklash Hussain vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 18 October, 2006
In the course of arguments, counsel for the workman has relied on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1902/2006 entitled Shri Iklash Hussain v. Delhi Transport Corporation' decided on 18th October, 2006, to state that self employment or assistance rendered by relatives for sustenance and survival cannot be termed as employment in any establishment, so as to disentitle the workman from the emoluments payable under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the said judgment, reliance has been placed by the Division Bench on various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, including the following:
Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs Delhi Administration Through ... on 27 September, 1984
Taj Services Limited vs Industrial Tribunal-I & Others on 4 October, 1999
(iii) Taj Services Limited v. Industrial Tribunal -I and Ors. 2000 Vol.I LLJ 1012.
The Management Of D.A.T.C. Ltd. Now ... vs The Presiding Officer, I Addl Labour ... on 6 March, 2002
(iv) Delhi Transport Corporation v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Delhi and Ors. 2002 II AD (DELHI) 112.
Food Craft Instt. vs Rameshwar Sharma And Anr. on 28 April, 2006
(vi) Food Craft Institute and Ors. v. Rameshwar Sharma and Anr. 2006 VI AD (DELHI) 189.
Nai Dunia Urdu Weekly Newspaper, ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. X, ... on 11 September, 2006
9. On merits, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the claim of the petitioner management to the effect that the workman had tendered his resignation, is wrong and in fact, the said resignation was obtained under duress and coercion from the workman, who subsequently made a complaint in this regard with the police station. The Kiryana shop referred to by the petitioner management was claimed to be run by the wife of the workman and not by the workman himself. Counsel for the workman relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nai Dunia Urdu Weekly Newspaper v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. X, and Ors. reported as 2007 LLR 274, to state that mere denial of the signatures on the summons is not enough to rebut the presumption of proper service, particularly when all earlier notices were duly received by the petitioner.
The Management Of G.G. Fashion And Ors. vs Smt. Jayanti Negi on 25 April, 2006
1