Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.60 seconds)Section 38 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003
8.04 In the above case a disciplinary action has been taken against one of the employees of the Federal Bank, and the services of the employee with the Bank was terminated. The action of the bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition. The Apex Court held that the employee is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
V.M. Gadre (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors vs M.G. Diwan & Others on 15 March, 1996
In V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan , Supreme Court has held that:
Venkatramani N. vs Indian Bank Rep. By Its Chairperson And ... on 4 July, 2005
In N. Venkatramani v. Indian Bank and Anr. 2005 WLR 820, a Division Bench of this Court at Para 12 observed that: the right of the employee to receive pension depends upon the interpretation of Regulation 18 vis-a-vis the amended Regulation 28, by which, the proviso came to be added with effect from 01.09.2000. It is a case dealing with broken service and the facts are not identical. However the Division Bench has clearly held that the right of the pensioner depends upon the interpretation of the regulation.