Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Milis Co. Ltd vs Labour Court Nagpur & Ors on 25 November, 1971
In R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Labour Court, Nagpur, (1972-I-LLJ-231) (SC), an application was filed by the workmen under Section 33-C(2) of the Act to claim lay off compensation. The application was contested by the employer on the ground that there was no lay off.
Ramakrishna Ramnath vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 27 February, 1970
In Ramakrishna Ram Nath v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nagpun, (1970-II-LLJ-306), the Supreme Court held that where the employee has made a claim to be paid monetary benefits under Section 25-FFF of the Act, the mere fact that the employer has challenged the factum of closure will not deprive the workman from claiming compensation in terms of Section 25-FFF of the Act.
State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs R.L. Khandelwal on 6 September, 1967
In P.K. Singh v. Presiding Officer (1988-II-LLJ-363), the Supreme Court distinguished its own judgments in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Khandelwal (R.I.).
Indian Airlines vs Central Government Labour Court, New ... on 20 March, 1987
In Indian Airlines v. Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi, (1987-II-LLJ-512), a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act the Labour Court can enquire into the existence of the right of the workmen to claim a benefit in terms of money and such enquiry is incidental in character.
Section 20 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 25A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Central Bank Of India Ltd vs P.S. Rajagopalan Etc on 19 April, 1963
In The Central Bonk of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan (1963-II-LLJ-89), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 33-C(2) takes within its purview cases
of workmen who claim that the benefit for which they arc entitled should be computed in terms of money even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by the employed and the claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Act clearly postulates that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of right and such enquiry must be held to be incidental to the main determination. The Court further held that for the purpose of making necessary determination under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, it would, in appropriate cases, be open to the Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement oh which the workmen's right rests, At (he same time, the Court held that while determining the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act care must be taken not to exclude the cases which legitimately fall within its purview. It must also be bonie in mind that the cases which fall within Section 10(1) of the Act cannot be brought within the scope of Section 33-C of the Act.