Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.84 seconds)Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
State Bank Of India vs Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors on 14 November, 2000
In the case of State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey
& Ors., [2001] 1 SCC 73, this Court held as under:
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 33C in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Shri Birendra Bhandari on 28 September, 2006
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Birendra A
Bhandari (supra), while examining claim for
payment of arrears relating to differentiation of
salary, D.A. arising out of recommendation of 5 th
Pay Commission, has held thus:-
Mangananese Ore (India) Ltd vs Chandi Lal Saha And Ors on 1 November, 1990
16. In the present case, as noted hereinabove,
there is dispute with regard to the liability of
payment of minimum wages as there are various
contractors, under which the respondent-workmen
have served. Petitioner No.2 had contended that
no amount is due and payable. The fact also
reveals that the respondent-workmen were also
engaged by one Anmol Education Service till
October, 2005. The Labour Court has very
cursorily passed the order conferring the
liability on all the petitioners, without
discussing the contract period. Thus, without
prior adjudication on the aforesaid facts, the
Labour Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order
under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. Reliance
placed on the jugement of Apex Court in the case
of Chandi Lal Saha (supra) will not rescue the
respondent-workmen since, in the case before the
Apex Court, the parties had admitted the fixation
of minimum rates and there was no dispute with
regard to the period and liability of payment
minimum wages.
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr vs Brijpal Singh on 27 September, 2005
9. The position was re-iterated by a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Brijpal Singh,
[2005] 8 SCC 58.