Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.08 seconds)
The Management vs The Joint Commissioner Of Labour on 3 February, 2012 cites

Strawboard Manufacturing Co vs Gobind on 6 March, 1962

In the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Company Vs. Gobind reported in 1962 Vol I LLJ 420, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that approval should be obtained before dismissal. The Supreme Court had held that the word "simultaneously" must of course be taken reasonably and a motion of split-second timing should not be imported. It should be done at once and without delay. In the present case, the Authority had categorically held that 24 days delay was unexplained and therefore, the time gap is too large.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 60 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Metal Press Works Ltd. vs Deb (H.R.) And Ors. on 1 June, 1961

The contrary view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Metal Press Works Limited Vs. Deb(N.R) and others (1962-I LLJ 75) where it has been held that payment of wages and the making of the application should be simultaneous with the order of discharge or dismissal. It has further been pointed out that : the word "simultaneously" must of course be taken reasonably and a motion of split-second timing should not be imported. It should be done at once and without delay."
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs Ramachandra Bhimayya Polkam on 15 October, 1959

We may now refer to certain cases which have been relied upon by either side. The main case on which learned counsel for the respondents relies is Premier Automobiles Limited Vs. Ramachandra Bhimayya Polkam and another (1960-I LLJ 443). In that case, the Bombay High Court held that the application should be made before the action has been taken by the employer and that it was not correct to infer from the use of the word "approval" in the proviso that the legislature intended that such an application should be made after the action had been taken. The High Court has pointed out that there is apparent conflict between the first and last part of the proviso and the view it took was with the object of harmonizing the two parts.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Indian Extractions (Private) Ltd. vs Vyas (A.V.) And Anr. on 29 August, 1960

This view has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in Indian Extractions (Private) Limited Vs. A.V.Vyas, Conciliation Officer (AIR (1961) Guj.22) though with some hesitation. With respect we feel that it is not necessary to read the words "action taken" in the proviso as equal to "action proposed to be taken" as the Bombay High Court has done and that the apparent conflict between the two parts of the proviso can be harmonized, as we have indicated above, leaving it open to the employer to dismiss or discharge the employee and at the same time pay him the necessary wages and make an application to the authority concerned for approval of the action taken.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1