Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.53 seconds)
Dr. Y.S.P.U.H.F And Anr vs Joginder Singh And Anr on 11 December, 2024 cites

State Of Bihar vs Kripa Nand Singh on 23 July, 2014

and others (supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that denial of back wages would amount to indirectly punishing the employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back- wages and where an employer wants to deny back-wages to an employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, it is required to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period, the employee was gainfully employed. Since in the cases at hand, petitioner failed to prove factum of gainful employment, if any of the respondents during the period in question, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Tribunal below, while holding respondents entitled for back wages.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills ... vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 12 December, 1996

"4. The tribunal, vide separate order dated 20.03.2019 and 15.03.2019 impugned in the petitions, on the basis of evidence led by the parties, held that there was no dispute amongst the parties that after the publication of the award on 16.04.2014, the workman submitted joining report Ex. W-3 in the office of petitioner No. 2 on 07.05.2014 followed by numerous reminders to both petitioners but was taken back on duty only 29.07.2015. The Tribunal held that joining report submitted by the workman to petitioner No. 2 was admitted not only in the written reply but also by MW-1 Rajpal Singh in his affidavit Ex. MW-1/A, thus it was apparent that although the workman was willing to perform duty after the passing of the award and that he was not taken back on duty till 29.07.2015 and on the aforesaid basis, held that the conduct of the management clearly revealed that it was not inclined to take back the workman on duty whereas the workman was interested in joining duty as soon as possible, therefore, the principle of "no work no pay" would not apply. Reliance was placed by the Tribunal on the decision in Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 2011 (4) SCT 17 (P&H). In said case, the Labour Court found denial of employment to the workmen at the relevant time unjustified, consequentially, the workmen entitled for payment of wages for the period they were unjustly denied employment. Challenge to the order granting wages to the workmen, was dismissed and maintainability of the claim application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act upheld by relying upon a Division Bench judgment 2024:HHC:14788 19 in CWP No. 18810 of 1995. Relevant extract of the decision in CWP No. 18810 of 1995 is reproduced as under:--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - R L Anand - Full Document
1   2 Next