Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (2.31 seconds)Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani And Anr vs Pratapsing. Mohansingh Pardeshi ... on 18 September, 1995
This
court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant
Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi
(1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited
prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions.
It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and
flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where
grave injustice would be done unless the
High Court interferes.
Mrs. Rena Drego vs Lalchand Soni, Etc on 5 March, 1998
A three-Judge Bench of
this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998)
3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot
interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate
court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate
court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.
Virendra Kashinath Ravant And Another vs Vinayak N.Joshi And Others on 11 November, 1998
In
Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi &
Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under
Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the
subordinate courts function within its limits.
M/S. P.V.K.Distillery Ltd vs Mahendra Ram on 2 March, 2009
It
is necessary to note that the date of termination is 18th
January, 2000 and dispute raised by workman was referred for
adjudication on 9th March, 2000 and reference came to be
decided on 27th March, 2009. Duration in deciding
reference is exactly about 9 years. Pendency is not because of
lethargic approach of concerned workman. While considering question
of back wages, labour court has considered relevant aspect and mere
long pendency of litigation in Court is not a ground to deny relief
of back wages to concerned employee, otherwise, employee would
suffer double jeopardy of losing back wages and also delay in
getting reinstatement. As per recent decision of apex court in case
of M/s. PVK Distillery Ltd. v. Mahendra Ram, 2009 AIR SCW page
2904, question of relief of
back wages has been considered while considering long pendency of
litigation in Courts and it was held that it is not ground to deny
relief,otherwise, employee would suffer double jeopardy of losing
back wages and also delay in getting reinstatement. Relevant
paragraph 20,21,22 and 23 are reproduced as under: