Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
M/S Birla Corporation Limited vs Rakesh Kumar Dtar on 27 May, 2024 cites

Harwindra Kumar vs Chief Engineer, Karmik & Ors on 18 November, 2005

4. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 300 parties being Harwindra Kumar Vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik and others saying that if the order of superannuation is found illegal and is set aside, the petitioners are entitled to get 100% back wages. However, the facts of said case is altogether different from the case in hand and, therefore, the same is not applicable. In the said case, the Supreme Court has considered the interim order granted by the Court whereby the employees were allowed to continue in service, therefore, they become entitled to get salary, Supreme Court restrained the Government to make any recovery whereas in the present case, the reference has been made to the Labour Court and the Labour Court decided the case, framed issue regarding back wages and appreciating the material fact available granted 50% of back wages, therefore, interference in such finding is not proper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 157 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.& Anr on 16 April, 2014

5. However, in view of the aforesaid when the award has already been maintained in other set of petitions, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present petitions for the reason that the Labour Court has properly appreciated the issue regarding payment of back wages at the rate of 50%. Further, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujrat Vij Company and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 437 and Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, the interference by exercising the power Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 28-05-2024 16:49:57 3 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible and as such, writ petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed.''
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 95 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010

5. However, in view of the aforesaid when the award has already been maintained in other set of petitions, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present petitions for the reason that the Labour Court has properly appreciated the issue regarding payment of back wages at the rate of 50%. Further, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujrat Vij Company and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 437 and Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, the interference by exercising the power Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 28-05-2024 16:49:57 3 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible and as such, writ petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed.''
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 2466 - Full Document
1