Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)B. Shah vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 12 October, 1977
In B. SHAH v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, the Supreme Court applied the beneficient rule of construction in construing Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which makes the employer liable for the payment of maternity benefit to a woman worker at the rate of the average daily wage for 'the period of her actual absence immediately preceding and including the day of her delivery and for the six weeks immediately following that day'. The question before the Supreme Court was whether in calculating the maternity benefit for the period covered by Section 5. Sundays being wageless holiday should be excluded. The Apex Court in holding that Sundays must also be included, applied the beneficial rule of construction in favour of the woman worker and observed that the benefit conferred by the Act read in the light of the Article 42 of the Constitution was intended to enable the woman worker not only to subsist but also to make of her dissipated energy, nurse her child, preserve her efficiency as a worker and maintain the level of her previous efficiency and output.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shibu Metal Works on 9 November, 1964
To the similar effect is the observations of the Supreme Court in Regional Provident Funds Commissioner v. Shiba Metal Works, AIR 1965 SC 2108.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs S.K.Singhal on 16 April, 1999
In STATE OF HARYANA AND Ors. v. S.K.
SINGHAL, the Supreme Court noticing various types of voluntary
retirement rules in vogue in the country, held that under some rules
are voluntary retirement is automatic on the expiry of the period of
notice and in some cases even after the expiry of the period specified
in the notice, voluntary retirement is not automatic and an express grant of permission is required to be communicated.
The J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 12 December, 1960
In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court held that if an employee makes his intention to resign his job to the employer it is a case of resignation.
Moti Ram vs Param Dev And Anr on 5 March, 1993
Similar is the view of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. Param Dev & Anr., wherein it was held that resignation means the spontaneous relinquishment of ones own right in relation to an office. Resignation connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It may be bilateral or unilateral depending upon whether the rule requires acceptance or not. The essence of resignation is that the initiative to resign should come from the employee concerned and that initiative should be voluntary and out of free will. Unless these two conditions co-exist, mere cessation of service brought about by a method de hors the voluntary action of the employee could not be regarded as a resignation of the employee. In this case, it is nobody's case that the Appellant submitted any notice of resignation. On the otherhand, it is a matter of record that the Appellant in reply to the notice from the employer, sought for extension of time and made clear her intention to resume duties.
Union Of India & Ors vs D.R.R. Sastri on 22 November, 1996
In holding so, we may derive support from the judgments of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA v. D.R.R. SHASTRI, and in UNION OF INDIA v. LT. COL T.S. BHARGHAVA., Further, the pension Regulations nowhere exclude deemed voluntarily retires from entitlement to pension.
Union Of Indian & Ors vs Lt. Col. P. S. Bhargava on 10 January, 1997
In holding so, we may derive support from the judgments of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA v. D.R.R. SHASTRI, and in UNION OF INDIA v. LT. COL T.S. BHARGHAVA., Further, the pension Regulations nowhere exclude deemed voluntarily retires from entitlement to pension.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Mysodet (P) Ltd., Bangalore on 17 March, 1999
The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mysodet Private Limited, held that under a deemed clause unless exclusion is specific and categorical, no exclusion could be inferred or imposed or read into.