Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.79 seconds)
Industrial Dispute Between :­ vs M/S Gopal Das Estate And Housing (P) Ltd on 18 August, 2020 cites

Workmen Of M/S. Delhi Cloth And General ... vs Management Of M/S. Delhi Cloth And ... on 17 October, 1969

In the Case of Workmen of M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Management of M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd.,reported as 1970 Scr (2) 886, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held.:"(2) Rule, 28F(4) of the Industrial Disputes (Central)Rules 1957 made under S. 38 of the Industrial Disputes Act has full force of law of which judicial notice can be taken. This rule must be fully com-plied Page 10 of 17 with if the settlement is to have a binding effection all workmen." (896A).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 79 - I D Dua - Full Document

G. T. Lad & Ors vs Chemicals & Fibres Of India Ltd on 6 December, 1978

38. Observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of G.T.Lad v. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd., reported in (1979) 1 SCC 590 throws great deal of light on this aspect, The Court noted: ".. In the unabridged edition of the Random House Dictionary, the word 'abandon' has been explained as meaning 'to leave completely and word 'abandon' has been explained as meaning 'to leave completely and finally; forsake utterly; to relinquish, renounce; to give up all concern in something'. ...It must be total and under such circumstances as clearly to indicate an absolute relinquishment. The failure to perform the duties pertaining to the office must be with actual imputed intention, on the part of the officer to abandon and relinquish the office. The intention may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the party, and is a question of fact. Temporary absence is not ordinarily sufficient to constitute an 'abandonment of office'."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 274 - J Singh - Full Document

Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors on 12 August, 2013

43. The workman-herein has sought the relief of reinstatement in the service with full back wages along with the continuity of service and all the consequential benefits. The term "reinstatement" has not been elucidated in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, 3rd Edition stated that, the word "re- instate" means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition etc.); to restore to its proper and original state; to reinstate afresh and the word "reinstatement means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. "As per Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, "reinstatement" means 'to reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office, to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed'. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity and back wages is the normal rule. Held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 324. The concept of reinstatement was also discussed therein: "17. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer."
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 1432 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd vs Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. ... on 7 September, 1978

In Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., (1979 (2) SCC 80). The three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down : "In the very nature of things there cannot to a straightjacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion Page 15 of 17 addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances..."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 517 - D A Desai - Full Document

Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs Delhi Administration Through ... on 27 September, 1984

46. So far as the expression "gainful employment in an establishment" is concerned, it has been held by the courts that the self-employment too is not employment in an establishment. This question fell for consideration before the Apex Court in (1984) 4 SCC 635 entitled Rajinder Kumar Kundra Vs. Delhi Administration while considering the question relating to award of back wages, the court noticed thus:- "... the appellant (workman) in his cross- examination has admitted that during his forced absence from employment since the date of termination of his service, he was maintaining his family by helping his father-in-law Tara Chand who owns a coal depot, and that he and the members of his family lived with his father- in-law and that he had no alternative source of maintenance. If this is gainful employment, the employer can contend that the dismissed employee in order to keep his body and soul together had taken to begging and that would as well be a gainful employment. The gross perversity with which the employer had approached this case has left us stunned. If the employer after an utterly unsustainable termination order of service wants to deny back wages on the ground that the appellant and the members of his family were staying with the father-in-law of the appellant as there was no alternative source of maintenance and during this period appellant was helping his father-in- law of the appellant as there was no alternative source of maintenance and during this period appellant was helping his father-in-law Tara Chand who had a coal depot, it cannot be said that the appellant was gainfully employed. This cannot be said to be gainful employment so as to reject the claim for back wages. There is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was gainfully employed during the period of his absence from service. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to full back wages and all Page 16 of 17 consequential benefits."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 357 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next