Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (3.65 seconds)
Surendra Kumar Gyani vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 3 September, 1992 cites

Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978

The learned Judge presiding over the Single Bench relying on the division of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. and also some other decisions of the Supreme Court had come to the findings that the said Department was 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. Accordingly, Section 25F of the Act was applicable in the matter of retrenchment and termination of service of the employers of the said Department. The learned Judge was of the view that as no specific tenure was fixed for determining the service of the Lower Division Clerks employed on daily wage basis, the respondents were required to give retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. But such retrenchment compensation not having been paid in accordance without the Act, the impugned orders of termination were illegal and invalid. The learned Judge, therefore, quashed the orders of termination of service of the Writ Petitioners and directed that the Writ Petitioners would be entitled to be reinstated with full backwages.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 985 - M H Beg - Full Document

The Ambala Central Co-Operative Bank ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 12 June, 1990

In support of this contention, the learned Counsel has referred to a Bench decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made in the case of the Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hullundur and Ors. 1984 Labour and Industrial Cases 974. It has been held by the said case that where the service s of the workmen were terminated on their rendering 230 days service with notional breaks, when the work of the workmen was satisfactory, and others had been recruited in their place, it was an instance of unfair labour practice and in such circumstances the women were held entitled to reinstatement with full/ backwages.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Workmen Of Municipal Corporation Of ... vs Management Of Municipal Corporation Of ... on 30 May, 1986

7. The learned Counsel has also referred to another decision of Delhi High Court made in the case of Workmen of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. v. Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. 1987(1) Labour Law Journal 85. The concerned workman in the said case was employed on daily wage basis as a Pipe Fitter in the Slum Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The said workman was not allowed to work in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Labour Court did not grant any relief in favour of the workman in view of the fact that the Department of which the workman was employed had been transferred to Delhi Development Authority and therefore no relief could be asked against the Delhi Municipal Corporation. It was held in the said case that when the workman was not assigned any further work, when he was an employee of Delhi Municipal Corporation it amounted to termination. Since the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were complied with, the workman was entitled to be deemed to be in continuous service of the Municipal Corporation and entitled to consequential benefits.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1