Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.38 seconds)
La-Cast Metals And Components Pvt Ltd vs Navsi Vaghat & on 21 September, 2017 cites

Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 March, 1997

16.3 So far as the decision in case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar (supra) is concerned, in the said decision, Hon'ble Apex Court took into account that daily wagers have no right to posts if they were not appointed in accordance with law and their disengagement from service cannot be treated as retrenchment. In present case, the learned Labour Court has, on appreciation of evidence, found that there was nothing on record to establish or even Page 23 HC-NIC Page 26 of 38 Created On Sun Sep 24 23:26:54 IST 2017 26 of 38 C/SCA/16287/2013 JUDGMENT demonstrate that the workmen were not regular / permanent workmen and/or that they were daily wagers. The said claim/allegation was not proved. That is the finding of fact recorded by learned Labour Court. Therefore, said decision cannot help the company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 228 - Full Document

Vijay S. Sathaye vs Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors on 6 September, 2013

16.6 So far as the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors. (supra) is concerned, it is relevant to recall that in present case, the learned Labour Court has, after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, reached to the finding of fact that after withdrawal of strike, the workmen had reported for duty, however, they were not allowed to report for duty and their service came to be terminated with oral instructions. The facts involved in said decision are also materially different from the facts of this case and from the findings of facts recorded by the labour Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 102 - Full Document

State Of M.P. & Ors vs Arjunlal Rajak on 24 February, 2006

16.1 So far as the decision in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Arjunlal Rajak (supra) is concerned, it emerges from the facts recorded and considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision that the claimant in the said decision was engaged at different time in different departments/places of forest department of State Page 21 HC-NIC Page 24 of 38 Created On Sun Sep 24 23:26:54 IST 2017 24 of 38 C/SCA/16287/2013 JUDGMENT of Madhya Pradesh. In paragraph No.3 of the decision, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the learned Labour Court has failed to take into account that the division / department where the claimant was engaged was wound up since July 1992 and that the learned Labour Court passed the award directing reinstatement without having regard to the fact that the unit was wound up. From the facts involved in the said decision, it emerges that the set of facts involved in the said case are materially different from the facts of this case and that therefore, the said decision does not render any assistance to the company in present group of petitions. In present case, the company is, undisputedly, a going concern and it continues its activities / business which would mean that other persons have been engaged in place of the claimants for the work which the claimants used to perform. According to the workmen, the said action of company i.e. engaging other workmen while their employment continues because even according to the company their services have not been terminated - amounts to unfair labour practise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 84 - S B Sinha - Full Document

D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993

In light of the fact that the union/workmen claimed that the strike was unconditionally withdrawn w.e.f. 24.7.1997 and in light of the fact that the company did not allow the workmen to resume their respective duties on and after 24.7.1997 and terminated their service by oral order on 24.7.1997 without following procedure prescribed by law, it is appropriate to take into account observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.K.Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd and the decision in case of Punjab Land Development Reclamation Corp. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer [1997 (3) SCC 682].
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 597 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Punjab Tourism Development ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 13 August, 1996

In light of the fact that the union/workmen claimed that the strike was unconditionally withdrawn w.e.f. 24.7.1997 and in light of the fact that the company did not allow the workmen to resume their respective duties on and after 24.7.1997 and terminated their service by oral order on 24.7.1997 without following procedure prescribed by law, it is appropriate to take into account observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.K.Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd and the decision in case of Punjab Land Development Reclamation Corp. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer [1997 (3) SCC 682].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - M L Singhal - Full Document

Hindustan Steel Works Construction ... vs Hindustan Steel Works Construction ... on 10 February, 1995

It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 337 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next