Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.47 seconds)
Sh. Adan Lal vs M/S Saket City Hospital on 24 July, 2023 cites

Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Phool Chand (D) Through Lrs. on 20 September, 2018

50.On this point, this court finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v Phool Chand (D) Through Lrs. 1, in which it was held that "In our considered opinion, the Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 313 - A M Sapre - Full Document

M.P. State Electricity Board vs Smt. Jarina Bee on 15 July, 2003

It further held that "In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages is required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, MP State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.)1, G.M. Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh2, U.P. State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey3, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal & 1(2003) 6 SCC 141 2(2005) 5 SCC 591 3(2006) 1 SCC 479 LIR No. 6808/16 Adan Lal vs. Saket City Hospital Page No. 22 of 26 Anr.1, Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan2, Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.3 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors". 4 It further held that "The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 188 - A Pasayat - Full Document

General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs Rudhan Singh on 14 July, 2005

It further held that "In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages is required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, MP State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.)1, G.M. Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh2, U.P. State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey3, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal & 1(2003) 6 SCC 141 2(2005) 5 SCC 591 3(2006) 1 SCC 479 LIR No. 6808/16 Adan Lal vs. Saket City Hospital Page No. 22 of 26 Anr.1, Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan2, Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.3 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors". 4 It further held that "The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 543 - G P Mathur - Full Document

U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Udai Narain Pandey on 8 December, 2005

It further held that "In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages is required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, MP State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.)1, G.M. Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh2, U.P. State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey3, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal & 1(2003) 6 SCC 141 2(2005) 5 SCC 591 3(2006) 1 SCC 479 LIR No. 6808/16 Adan Lal vs. Saket City Hospital Page No. 22 of 26 Anr.1, Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan2, Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.3 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors". 4 It further held that "The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 804 - S B Sinha - Full Document

J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007

It further held that "In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages is required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, MP State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.)1, G.M. Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh2, U.P. State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey3, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal & 1(2003) 6 SCC 141 2(2005) 5 SCC 591 3(2006) 1 SCC 479 LIR No. 6808/16 Adan Lal vs. Saket City Hospital Page No. 22 of 26 Anr.1, Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan2, Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.3 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors". 4 It further held that "The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 579 - Full Document

Metropolitan Transport Corpn vs V. Venkatesan on 7 August, 2009

It further held that "In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages is required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, MP State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.)1, G.M. Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh2, U.P. State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey3, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal & 1(2003) 6 SCC 141 2(2005) 5 SCC 591 3(2006) 1 SCC 479 LIR No. 6808/16 Adan Lal vs. Saket City Hospital Page No. 22 of 26 Anr.1, Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan2, Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.3 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors". 4 It further held that "The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 136 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Jagbir Singh vs Haryana State Agr.Marketing Board & Anr on 14 July, 2009

It further held that "In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages is required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, MP State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.)1, G.M. Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh2, U.P. State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey3, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal & 1(2003) 6 SCC 141 2(2005) 5 SCC 591 3(2006) 1 SCC 479 LIR No. 6808/16 Adan Lal vs. Saket City Hospital Page No. 22 of 26 Anr.1, Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan2, Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.3 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors". 4 It further held that "The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 760 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Kishan Devi And Bhagwati Devi And Ors. on 3 January, 2007

52.The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Krishan Devi and Bhagwati Devi & Ors.6 has held that "even if the termination of a person is held illegal, Labour Court is not supposed to direct reinstatement along with full back wages and the relief can be moulded according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and take into account the allegations made by the work-women, the nature of contribution by the work-women to the industry, the time gap and averments made about the unemployment and 1(2007) 2 SCC 433 2(2009) 9 SCC 601 3(2009) 15 SCC 327 4(2013) 10 SCC 324.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 475 - S N Dhingra - Full Document
1   2 Next