Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Section 22 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965
Section 22 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
M/S. Agencia E. Sequeira M/S. Fabril ... vs Labour Commissioner & Others on 31 January, 1997
15. The scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been time and again explained by the Apex Court and our attention was drawn by Mr. Prasad to the latest decision on the question which is reported in Fabril Gasosa v. Labour Commissioner . Though this is not a case on the backdrop of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 19 are apposite and most relevant. The Supreme Court says:
Pappu And Anr. vs Raja Tile And Match Works on 25 February, 1988
14. Our attention was invited to a Division Bench decision of Kerala High Court in Pappu and Anr. v. Raja Tile & Match Works 1989-I-LLJ-14 where the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court have also taken the stock of the judgment in Aranha's case (supra) and have expressed their inability to agree with the proposition laid down therein. This is more or less a story in the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court also.
1