Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri D.D. Gupta, Presiding Officer And ... on 19 April, 1996
13. In the instant case, the appellant had barely worked
in the establishment of the respondent as an Account Clerk
for a period of about 240 days when his services were
terminated in the year 1988. Between the date of termination
and as of now about 13 years have gone by. The same
considerations as are detailed in para 28 of the decision of
this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Presiding
Officer and Anr. (supra) are applicable to the instant
case. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, entirely
right in directing payment of compensation instead of
reinstatement with back wages.
Rattan Singh vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1991
In Rattan Singh v. Union of India and Anr.
(supra), where termination of services of the workman was
made without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court instead
ordered payment of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and
back wages. In this regard the Supreme Court observed as
follows :-
Rolston John vs Central Government Industrial ... on 28 January, 1992
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties. The only question which needs to be
decided is whether the learned Single Judge was legally
justified in modifying the award of the Tribunal by directing
the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the appellant
in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. It appears to us
that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is supported
not only by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer and Anr.
(supra), but also by the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Rolston John v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court and Ors. (supra) and Rattan Singh v. Union of
India and Anr. (supra).
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Management Of M.C.D vs Prem Chand Gupta And Anr on 16 December, 1999
14. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(MCD) v. Prem Chand Gupta and Anr., ; Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers'
Union and Anr., ; Hindustan Tin
Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of Hindustan Tin
Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., ; where the
workmen whose services had been illegally terminated were
held entitled to reinstatement and back wages. The view
taken by the Supreme Court in those cases was based upon fact
situations which were different from the fact situation of
the instant case. The learned Single Judge has also pointed
out that the appellant manipulated the appointment of his
wife and mother-in-law as part time instructors at Vidya
Nagar, Agra, and at village Achhnnera centres of the
respondent respectively. It was also noticed that the
respondent was not carrying on any commercial enterprises for
the purpose of making profit. That apart, in view of the
work and conduct of the appellant as an ad-hoc employee, his
services were not regularised. Keeping in view the peculiar
circumstances of the case we are not persuaded to take a
different view than the one taken by the learned Single
Judge.
Indian Overseas Bank vs I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union & Anr on 11 April, 2000
14. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(MCD) v. Prem Chand Gupta and Anr., ; Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers'
Union and Anr., ; Hindustan Tin
Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of Hindustan Tin
Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., ; where the
workmen whose services had been illegally terminated were
held entitled to reinstatement and back wages. The view
taken by the Supreme Court in those cases was based upon fact
situations which were different from the fact situation of
the instant case. The learned Single Judge has also pointed
out that the appellant manipulated the appointment of his
wife and mother-in-law as part time instructors at Vidya
Nagar, Agra, and at village Achhnnera centres of the
respondent respectively. It was also noticed that the
respondent was not carrying on any commercial enterprises for
the purpose of making profit. That apart, in view of the
work and conduct of the appellant as an ad-hoc employee, his
services were not regularised. Keeping in view the peculiar
circumstances of the case we are not persuaded to take a
different view than the one taken by the learned Single
Judge.
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd vs Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. ... on 7 September, 1978
14. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(MCD) v. Prem Chand Gupta and Anr., ; Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers'
Union and Anr., ; Hindustan Tin
Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of Hindustan Tin
Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., ; where the
workmen whose services had been illegally terminated were
held entitled to reinstatement and back wages. The view
taken by the Supreme Court in those cases was based upon fact
situations which were different from the fact situation of
the instant case. The learned Single Judge has also pointed
out that the appellant manipulated the appointment of his
wife and mother-in-law as part time instructors at Vidya
Nagar, Agra, and at village Achhnnera centres of the
respondent respectively. It was also noticed that the
respondent was not carrying on any commercial enterprises for
the purpose of making profit. That apart, in view of the
work and conduct of the appellant as an ad-hoc employee, his
services were not regularised. Keeping in view the peculiar
circumstances of the case we are not persuaded to take a
different view than the one taken by the learned Single
Judge.
1