Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.25 seconds)
Siddi Anwar Husain Siddi Mahemood ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 26 September, 2022 cites

Magic Wash Industries (P) Ltd. And Ors. vs Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner And ... on 26 November, 1998

In Magic Wash Industries (Private) Limited vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others, 1999 Vol.II Current Labour Reports 426, the learned Division Bench of this Court at Goa concluded on the issue of reduction of the infancy ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2022 18:54:33 ::: *29* FB5855o19group.odt period under Section 16(1)(d) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952, that there can be no doubt that the vested rights or benefits under the legislation could be retrospectively taken away by legislation, but the statute taking away such rights or benefits must expressly reflect its intention to that effect. It was held that the amended provision does not curtail the infancy period of the already existing establishments which enjoyed five years infancy period and that the amended provision would be applicable only to establishments newly set up after coming into effect of the said provision on the statute book.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 15 - R K Batta - Full Document

Faheem Akhtar Akhtaruzz Aman vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 18 April, 2019

16. Shri Deshmukh has then relied upon the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad on 18.04.2019 in Writ Petition No.5307/2018 filed by Faheem Akhtar s/o Akhtaruzz Aman vs. The State of Maharashtra wherein, an identical issue was raised. Faheem Akhtar was appointed on 01.08.1999 and was superannuated on 31.12.2016 at the age of 58 years. The Wakf Board cited the 2017 Regulations stating that the Government has granted the sanction to these Regulations in June, 2018. The Division Bench concluded that Fhaeem Akhtar was superannuated when the 1964 Regulations were applicable and the 2017 Regulations were in the nature of draft rules. The Division Bench, therefore, concluded in paragraphs 5 and 6 as under:-
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document
1   2 3 Next