Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)Modi Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1993
In 2013(6) AWC 5550, M/s Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Industrial Ltd. Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner UP and others, again reliance was placed on the Modi Industries Ltd. (supra) and this Court held that where the question of applicability of Minimum Wages Act or the issue as to whether the wages were to be paid to the workmen as per the notification or not was never an issue inter se between the parties and, therefore, could not have been adjudicated in proceedings under Section 3 of the Act, 1978. Paragraph 14 of the judgment reads as under:-
Section 6 in The Interest Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Indian Oxygen Shramik Sangh vs Additional Labour Commissioner And ... on 17 August, 1992
In 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1139, Indian Oxygen Shramik Sangh Vs Additional Labour Commissioner and Ors. in paragraph 8 this Court has held as under:-
Workmen Of The Straw Board ... vs M/S. Straw Board Manufacturing Company ... on 21 March, 1974
In my opinion, it is no doubt open for the workmen to contend that there was in fact no closure vide Workmen of Straw Board Mills Co. Ltd., v. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1974-I-LLJ-499), but this matter can only be gone into in a full-fledged adjudication on a reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (or Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act) to the Labour Court or the Tribunal. In my opinion, if there is a serious dispute of facts regarding the liability of the employer to pay any amount it can only be adjudicated upon in a reference by the State Government to the Labour Court or the Tribunal. The case of the employer is that the Kanpur Unit was closed down on January 10, 1991. Hence if the workmen want to dispute the factum of closure the remedy is to raise an industrial dispute and get the matter referred under Section 4-K of the U.P. Act or Section 10 of the Central Act and then the matter can be decided by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. This serious dispute cannot be decided by the Additional Labour Commissioner under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978."
Hindustan Lever Ltd. And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 26 February, 1999
In 2008 (3) ADJ 50, Occupier/Director, M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., this Court has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Modi Industries Ltd. (supra). Paragraphs 11 and 12 are extracted below :-
Hotel And Restaurant Karamchari Sangh vs M/S Gulmarg Hotel And Ors on 8 June, 2006
"11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has gone on to urge that the claim as set up by the respondents was beyond the powers prescribed under the Act and without adjudication upon the effect of the scheme, settlement, receipts etc, the claim cannot be granted and the power under the Act cannot be utilised for adjudication upon highly disputed questions. He has relied upon the ratio of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 159 : 1993 ALL LJ 1372 which was latter followed in Hotel & Restaurant, Karamchari Sangh v. Gulmarg Hotel and Ors., Air 2006 Supreme Court 2336 : (2006) 4 All LJ 596.
M/S Samtel Color Limited vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 March, 2013
In 2013 (2) UPLBEC 1370, M/s Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others again this Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Modi Industries Ltd. (supra) and held that where there is a valid dispute as to whether the action of the employer in laying-off its workers was valid or not the validity and legality of the lay off cannot be adjudicated by an authority in proceedings under Section 3 of the Act, 1978. Paragraph 13 of the judgment reads as under:-