Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.57 seconds)Pallavan Transport Corporation, ... vs Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour ... on 11 January, 1984
12. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Metro Tyres's case (supra) has held that "the statement of the workman about his doing agricultural operation for earning livelihood cannot be equated with gainful employment in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajinder Kumar Kindra's case." Apparently, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court was dealing with the issue regarding the discharge of burden of the employer regarding gainful employment of the employee during the time when he was out of service, and, in that regard, has observed that mere statement of the workman that he was getting some income by way of agricultural operation cannot be sufficient to draw a conclusion that the employer has discharged the burden regarding gainful employment of the employee.
M/S. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors vs Tarun Kumar Chakraborty on 14 August, 1997
22. The decision in Tarun Kumar Chakraborty's case (supra) is to the effect that mere indication of the occupation of the employee does not amount to proof of gainful employment.
P.G.I.Of M.E. & Research, Chandigarh vs Raj Kumar on 2 November, 2000
P.G.I. of Medical Education and Research's case and Hindustan Motors's case (supra), while holding that the statutory sanction is to direct payment of back wages in its entirety, the order in that regard should disclose exercise of discretion in judicial and judicious manner and there can be no strait-jacket formula evolved for exercise of such discretion.
Hindustan Motors Ltd vs Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya & Anr on 12 July, 2002
P.G.I. of Medical Education and Research's case and Hindustan Motors's case (supra), while holding that the statutory sanction is to direct payment of back wages in its entirety, the order in that regard should disclose exercise of discretion in judicial and judicious manner and there can be no strait-jacket formula evolved for exercise of such discretion.
The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees Of The Bharat Bank ... on 26 May, 1950
6. The Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Put. Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. while dealing with the subject of payment of full back wages consequent to the order of reinstatement had held that the full back wages would be normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure and the Tribunal in that regard will have to exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances but the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. It was clearly observed that "the reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular."
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
In P.G.I, of Medical Education and Research's case (supra), the Apex Court after taking note of its decision in Hindustan Tin Works (supra) as well as Sayed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. has held that though the normal rule being payment of back wages in its entirety, on the direction for reinstatement of the employee in a case where matter comes up before the High Court in writ jurisdiction against the order of the Labour Court restricting the direction to any amount less than the back wages in its entirety, it is necessary to consider whether the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is erroneous warranting interference by the High Court. It was further observed that "the finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and materials evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate, though however, perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court." It was also observed that "payment of back wages, having a discretionary element involved in it, has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety." It was further observed that in the event of the High Court finds it necessary to interfere then there would be an obligation on the part of the High Court to record in its judgment the reasoning before the denouncing a judgment of an inferior Tribunal, and in the absence of such reasons being disclosed in the judgment of the High Court, the same would not stand the scrutiny of otherwise being reasonable because "there ought to be available in the judgment itself a finding about the perversity or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court and it is only upon recording therewith the High Court has the authority to interfere."
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 27 February, 2003
At the same time, the Apex Court in recent decision in the matter of Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar has held that "Direction for reinstatement does not automatically entitle an employee to full back wages."
Punjab Land Development ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 4 May, 1990
Ltd. v. Labour Court (1964) I.L.L.J. 156 ruled thus:-
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Devi Dayal on 8 March, 2002
18. The decisions of the Apex Court in Hindustan Motors's case and Devi Dayal's case (supra) irnpliedly confirm the decision of the Division Bench in Sadanand Patankar's case (supra). In other words, merely because the employer has failed to establish the gainful employment of the employee after the termination of his service by such employer that by itself would not be a justification to grant the back wages in entirety. Eventually, there would be a burden cast upon the employee to disclose the efforts made by him to secure another job during the time he was out of employment on account of termination of the service, in order to justify the claim for the back wages in its entirety.