Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Sri. Prabhakar vs Joint Director Sericulture Department on 7 September, 2015
making the reference, as such, there appears to be no force in
the argument of Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the
workman that the learned Tribunal could not have gone into the
question of delay and laches, while ascertaining the claim of the
workman. The Apex Court, in Prabhakar v. Sericulture Deptt.
(2015) 15 SCC 1, while specifically dealing with the question of
delay in raising the dispute by the workman under the Act ibid,
has held that since there is no period of limitation prescribed
under the Industrial Disputes Act, for raising dispute but if
such a dispute is raised after a long period, it is to be seen
whether such a dispute still exists. In the aforesaid
background, Apex Court has held that notwithstanding the fact
that the law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by
the workman that there is a dispute in praesenti and, for that
purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period
has elapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay has
not resulted into making such dispute seized to exist. Apex
Court has further held that if because of such a delay, dispute
no longer remains alive and is to be treated as 'dead', then it
would be non-existent dispute, which cannot be referred. In the
aforesaid judgment, Apex Court concluded that the words, "at
any time", used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation
in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not
applicable to the proceedings under the Act ibid. However, the
policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should
not be generally encouraged or allowed unless there is a
satisfactory explanation for the delay. By way of aforesaid
judgment, Apex Court ordered that if a Court finds that the
dispute still exists though raised belatedly, it is always
permissible for the Court to take the aspect of delay into
consideration and mould the relief.
Section 2A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Girja Nand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 30 September, 2020
Similar
view has been taken by this Court in Girja Nand v. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWP No. 93 of 2019 decided on
13.3.2019; Smt. Sumfali Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh
and another, CWP No. 2861 of 2018 decided on 2.4.2019 and;
The Additional Chief Secretary (PW) & Others v. Shri Ram
Gopal, LPA No. 27 of 2019 decided on 3.4.2019. The long and
short of the matter is very well expressed by the maxim,
vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, that is to say, the
law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not
those that sleep thereupon."
Smt. Sumfali Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 2 April, 2019
Similar
view has been taken by this Court in Girja Nand v. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWP No. 93 of 2019 decided on
13.3.2019; Smt. Sumfali Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh
and another, CWP No. 2861 of 2018 decided on 2.4.2019 and;
The Additional Chief Secretary (PW) & Others v. Shri Ram
Gopal, LPA No. 27 of 2019 decided on 3.4.2019. The long and
short of the matter is very well expressed by the maxim,
vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, that is to say, the
law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not
those that sleep thereupon."
Deputy Executive Engineer vs Kuberbhai Kanjibhai on 7 January, 2019
In case titled Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai
.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
termination is found to be illegal because of nonpayment
of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as
mandatorily required under Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to
the management to terminate the services of that employee
by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such
a workman was working on dailywage basis and even after
he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation
[see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1].
Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no
right to continue even as a dailywage worker, no useful
purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a
workman and he can be given monetary compensation by
the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after
reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation
only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice
pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement,
that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.