Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.56 seconds)Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 2 May, 2006
No doubt in Uma Devi's case their Lordships were considering the question in the context of the effect of an appointment made de hors the service rules but the principle would have application equally if not with greater force where a termination of services is made de hors the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, for the employer cannot take advantage of his own wrong of non compliance of the statutory requirements, Even in Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P. (supra) (a decision of two Judges) where the appointment was found to be void the relief for reinstatement was refused not on the ground of the invalidity of the appointment but for other reasons. It was however held that reinstatement cannot be granted as a matter of course. The consequence of applying the decisions in Gammon India and Uma Devi's cases is that there has been no legal termination of the services of the workman and in law the continuity of his services stands maintained. However the relief of reinstatement with declaration that the workman continues in service is a discretionary relief. These may be circumstances which may disentitle the workman to the grant of such relief. There would be such cases where there is inordinate delay on the part of the workman in moving the machinery of law and it would be unjust to thrust his services upon the employer in changed circumstances or where the workman has been gainfully employed and payment of compensation may meet the ends of justice or where the industry is dead or in deep financial trouble. It is with reference to such circumstances that it can be said that reinstatement with continuity of service should not be granted as a matter of course. In the present case there is a finding of the labour court that the workman was not gainfully employed. There is nothing to show that the Mandi Samiti is in financial trouble or running into lasses or that the post of Mandi Sahayak has been abolished. In these circumstances the direction of the labour court to reinstate the workman appears to be just and proper. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
State Of U.P vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others on 16 December, 2005
In the present case however the appointment was made on 19.2.96 a date which does not fall within the period referred to in Neeraj Tripathi's case. The question principally involved in that case was about the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue directions for framing a scheme for regularisation of the employees of the Mandi Samiti. It was held that daily wagers are not employees of the Mandi Samiti in view of the definition of 'employee' in Regulation 2(e) which excludes daily wagers- and work charged and part time employees and therefore there is no question of regularisation of their services. We have seen that a claim for regularisation or permanency has little to do with the applicability of Section 6N. These cases therefore do not help the petitioner.
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Youth Hostel Through Its Warden vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 12 July, 2006
13. Youth Hostel Agra v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 2006(8) ADJ 525 is also not applicable. In that case it was held that the Youth Hostel was not an Industry. In view of this finding the provisions of Section 6N were inapplicable. The further observations that Section 6N applies only to those workmen in any industry who are properly appointed on a sanctioned post appears to be obiter.
M/S. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg..Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, ... on 31 March, 2003
Section 2(oo) was amended in the year 1984 and a Clause (bb) was added. Under this Clause (bb) the termination of the services of a workman on the ground of non renewal of a contract of service which has come to an end or a termination made in accordance with a condition contained in the contract of service is not retrenchment. The petitioner thus claimed before the labour court that the termination of the service of a daily wager whose engagement can be discontinued at any time would therefore not be covered under the definition of retrenchment after the introduction of Clause (bb). Termination of services of every kind other than the excepted ones is retrenchment vide S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Managefr 2003(4) 50 SCC 27. The definition of retrenchment under Section 2 (s) of the U.P. Act is the same as the unamended definition of retrenchment in the Central Act, there being no provision like Clause (bb) under the UP. Industrial Disputes Act. The result therefore is that the termination of services of a daily wager would also be included in the definition of retrenchment under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
State Of U.P. Through Executive ... vs Shri Sarv Jeet Son Of Shri Ram Bharose And ... on 26 April, 2006
In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Sarv Jeet and Anr. (2006 )1 SAC 715 it was held that it was neither proved that the appointment was made against any post nor that the workman had put in continuous service of 240 days and therefore Section 6N was inapplicable.