Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
Mag Engineering Employees Union vs State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2024 cites

Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd vs P. J. Sterling And Others on 15 May, 1959

(ii) Order dated 20.05.2022 is set aside. Matter is remitted to respondent No.2-appellate authority who shall after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties pass order specifically adverting to the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Guest, Keen, Williams (supra) as well as in the case of Barauni Refineries (supra) whether the law laid down by the Apex Court is applicable to the facts and
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 75 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 17 July, 1990

(ii) Order dated 20.05.2022 is set aside. Matter is remitted to respondent No.2-appellate authority who shall after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties pass order specifically adverting to the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Guest, Keen, Williams (supra) as well as in the case of Barauni Refineries (supra) whether the law laid down by the Apex Court is applicable to the facts and
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 213 - Full Document

Management Of Federal Mogul Goetze ... vs Additional Labour Commissioner ... on 1 August, 2022

(ii) The Appellant has not disclosed as to how the manufacturing process in its establishment was hazardous or arduous and that workmen beyond the age of 58 years are not suitable to continue in employment. In fact, appellant had signified his willingness before the authorities to favorably consider employees request for enhancement of retirement age, which aspect we discuss separately later. Whatever potential hazard that lies in every industrial activity can be taken care of by the advanced technology and safety measures; the appellant in the synopsis to the Writ Appeals has specifically admitted that he has installed "the state of the art safety system" and that there is "safe environment" in the unit. Appellant has not produced any expert medical opinion to substantiate the contention that there would be considerable deterioration in the fitness & agility of the employees in the age group of 58-60 years. No statistical data supportive of the contention was produced before the authorities or the learned Single Judge or even here before us. The Co- ordinate Bench in FEDERAL MOGUL, supra referred to several decisions on being challenged in SLP of the Apex Court wherein challenge to fixation of 60 years as the age of retirement was repelled and observed at paragraph 16: "...the Courts have always held in favour of upward revision of the age of retirement and have fixed it at sixty (60) years, even in case where there was no age of retirement fixed or agreed between the parties... " The Bench at paragraph 19 further observed: "This Court too has followed the above and have consistently held that the age of superannuation of workmen in industrial establishments could be fixed
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1