Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Jeet Lal Sharma vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court - Iv & ... on 15 March, 2000
11 Even the judgment relied upon by AR for workman
reported as 'Jeet Lal Sharma vs. POLC-IV & Anr, 84 (2000) DLT 706,
reiterates the same proposition of law that U/S 33-C (2) workman
can file application only when he is entitled to receive money
?
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Chajju Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 16 April, 2003
13 In the recent judgment reported as Union of India vs
Kunkuben (Dead)by LRs and others (2006 LLR 494), the Hon'ble
U
V W X Y Z
[ \ ] ^ \ ] ] _
Supreme Court has held Overtime Allowance cannot be claimed
U/s 33-C(2) of the ID Act on the ground that the workman's
entitlement to the same requires prior adjudication.
14 AR for the management has also contended that the
claim of the workman is liable to be rejected being time barred. AR
for workman pointed out that the workman was waiting for decision
of labour court in a similar matter filed by another workman against
DDA. When the claim of said workman was allowed by labour
court-IV vide order dated 08.03.2004, the present application was
filed by the workman. In my considered opinion pendency of
another similar case in the court cannot be a ground for the
claimant for not filing his own claim. Every case is decided on its
own facts. In fact, the workman should have been more vigilant
and motivated when his co-worker filed his case way back in 1993.
Even otherwise there is no explanation as to why the present claim
was filed more than two years after the said judgment.
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Surinder Pal Singh on 31 January, 1989
10 The above position of law has been reiterated thereafter
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including 'State
of UP vs Brij Pal Singh reported as (2005) 8 SCC 58.
Union Of India (Uoi) Through General ... vs Narayana M. And Ors. on 10 April, 2001
Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble
`
a b c d e
f g h i g h h j
Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M
(2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in
our case for the delayed claim.
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Manglor vs Pahal Singh on 10 April, 2007
Admittedly,
no specific limitation period is provided for an application U/S 33-c
(2) under I.D Act, still the court has to see the delay in approaching
the court as a stale claim as held in 'Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs.
Pahal Singh 2007 LLR 579'.
1