Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.71 seconds)The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Pramod Jha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 3 March, 2003
21. The legal position has been beautifully
summed up in Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar23
in the following words: (SCC pp. 624-25, para
Chandra Bhavan Boarding And Lodging, ... vs The State Of Mysore And Anr on 29 September, 1969
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
W.P.No.38008 of 2015
''7. It is seen that the primary ground on which
the challenge to the fixation of minimum wages was on
the ground that the authority under the Act condoned the
enormous delay in filing such applications. The learned
Single Judge after referring to the earlier decision of this
Court rightly held that the objection as regards the delay
was not sustainable and has no merits. The learned Single
Judge after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court
in Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore vs.
The State of Mysore and another, 1970 2 LLJ 408, held
that the main object of the Act is to prevent sweated
labour as well as exploitation of unorganised labour and
it is the duty of the State to see that at least minimum
wages are paid to the employees irrespective of the
capacity of the industry or unit to pay the same.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that there is no
distinction between private employer and the Government
employer in the matter of payment of minimum wages.
Anoop Sharma vs Exec.Eng.Pub.Health Division ... on 9 April, 2010
43.Therefore, in the light of these facts, it must
be held that the workmen were terminated from
their services and the condition precedent
under Section 25F of the I.D. Act was not
followed before sending them out of services. If
the condition under Section 25F was not
followed, the legal consequences have been set
out by the Supreme Court vide judgment in
Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public
Health Division No. 1, Panipat (Haryana)
reported in (2010) 5 SCC 497. In paragraphs
16 to 22, it was observed as follows:
"16.An analysis of the above reproduced
provisions shows that no workman employed in
any industry who has been in continuous
service for not less than one year under an
employer can be retrenched by that employer
until the conditions enumerated in clauses (a)
and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act are satisfied.
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
Page No.5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
W.P.No.38008 of 2015
renders the retrenchment of an employee
nullity—State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha14, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State
of Bombay15, SBI v. N. Sundara Money16,
Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala17,
Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.18, L.
Robert D'Souza v. Southern Railway19,
Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court20,
Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass21,
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab22 and
Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar23.
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
Page No.5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
W.P.No.38008 of 2015
renders the retrenchment of an employee
nullity—State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha14, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State
of Bombay15, SBI v. N. Sundara Money16,
Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala17,
Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.18, L.
Robert D'Souza v. Southern Railway19,
Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court20,
Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass21,
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab22 and
Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar23.
Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980
17. This Court has repeatedly held that
Sections 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act are
mandatory and non-compliance therewith
Page No.5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
W.P.No.38008 of 2015
renders the retrenchment of an employee
nullity—State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha14, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State
of Bombay15, SBI v. N. Sundara Money16,
Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala17,
Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.18, L.
Robert D'Souza v. Southern Railway19,
Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court20,
Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass21,
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab22 and
Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar23.
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
Page No.5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
W.P.No.38008 of 2015
renders the retrenchment of an employee
nullity—State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha14, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State
of Bombay15, SBI v. N. Sundara Money16,
Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala17,
Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.18, L.
Robert D'Souza v. Southern Railway19,
Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court20,
Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass21,
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab22 and
Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar23.
L. Robert D'Souza vs The Executive Engineer Southern ... on 16 February, 1982
17. This Court has repeatedly held that
Sections 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act are
mandatory and non-compliance therewith
Page No.5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
W.P.No.38008 of 2015
renders the retrenchment of an employee
nullity—State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha14, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State
of Bombay15, SBI v. N. Sundara Money16,
Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala17,
Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.18, L.
Robert D'Souza v. Southern Railway19,
Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court20,
Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass21,
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab22 and
Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar23.