Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Chief Officer, Bhavnagar Nagarpalika vs Meghjibhai Ugabhai And Ors. on 20 January, 1992
35.In Chief Officer, Bhavnagar Nagarpalika vs. Meghjibhai Ugabhai
& Others, in Special Civil Application No. 184/1980 (MANU/GJ/
0173/1992) decided on 20.01.1992 by Hon'ble High Court of
Gujarat a similar issued was considered in regard to the payment of
compensation/penalty under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which
was similar to Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act. It was observed
that the powers must be exercised under Section 20 of the Act
judiciously and the discretion conferred upon the Authority is not
unbridled or unguided. It was again held that ten times penalty is
neither mandatory nor compulsory and would depend on factors like
nature of employment, the status of employer, the nature of defaults,
the number of defaults, the frequency thereof, the amount involved,
the delay and such like factors.
K.P. Mushran vs B.C. Patil And Anr. on 24 August, 1951
25.In Mushran vs. Patil, MANU/MH/0074/1952 : AIR 1952 Bombay
235 the employee was under suspension and contention was put
forth by the employer/Railway Authority that in view of suspension,
no claim could be made for payment of wages during the period of
suspension. Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that if the relationship
of master and servant subsisted between the parties, then
notwithstanding the suspension, the employer is liable to pay the
charges for that period.
C.S. Parameswaran vs The Authority Under The Minimum Wages ... on 19 April, 1968
33.The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in C.S. Parameswaran
vs. The Authority Manu/MH/0193/1968in regard to similar
provision under Minimum Wages Act held that the Act vests a
discretion in the Authority whether to impose penalty or not; this
discretion has to be exercised judicially and in all circumstances
must be connected with the matter i.e. nonpayment or delayed
payment must be taken into account; each case must depend on the
equities of the case; there may be cases where the employer is not at
fault, there may be some difficulties in his way or there may be
some cause which prevented him from implementing the provisions
of the Act; all these factors may be considered before awarding the
compensation.
Section 17 in The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936 [Entire Act]
Viswanath Tukaram vs General Manager, Central Railway And ... on 4 July, 1957
26.In Viswanath Tukaram vs. General Manager, Central Railway &
RCA No. 51/2019
Wearwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 12 of 19
Company, Bombay (1958) 111 similar facts arose whether the
petitioner (workman) alleging that he was in the employment during
the suspension period is entitled to wages for such period. Since, the
employee failed to report for duty after period of three months, he
was treated as absconding and a temporary employee was engaged
in his vacant seat. His name was automatically struck off but later
after four years, he was reemployed. It was held that even though
he was directed to have been reemployed, but there was nothing to
show that his services were ever terminated. Only his name was
struck off from the attendance register because he was absconding.
The employee continued to be in service and in fact was reinstated
under the original contract. It was observed that the employee in the
given circumstances could be deemed to have been suspended and
so be the case he was entitled to avail salary as he was reinstated and
has no obloquy attached to his conduct; he indeed had obtained an
honourable discharge. The workman was deemed to be in the
employment and on the construction of the contract, held to be
entitled to full wages.