Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 25 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Dharappa Sangappa Nandyal vs Bijapur Co-Operative Milk Producers ... on 26 April, 2007
into consideration and mould the relief. In such cases, it is
open for the Court to either grant reinstatement with back
wages or lesser back wages or grant compensation instead of
reinstatement. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon
following judgments rendered by Apex Court, viz.; Rajasthan
State Agriculture Mktg. Board v. Mohan Lal (2013) 14 SCC
543; U.P. SRTC v. Ram Singh (2008) 17 SCC 627; Dharappa
v. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (2007)
9 SCC 109; Asstt. Engineer, CAD v. Dhan Kunwar (2006) 5
SCC 481 and Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588.
Smt. Sumfali Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 2 April, 2019
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWP No. 93 of 2019
decided on 13.3.2019; Smt. Sumfali Devi v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No. 2861 of 2018
decided on 2.4.2019 and; The Additional Chief Secretary
(PW) & Others v. Shri Ram Gopal, LPA No. 27 of 2019
decided on 3.4.2019. The long and short of the matter is very
well expressed by the maxim, vigilantibus non dormientibus
jura subveniunt, that is to say, the law assists those that are
vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon.
Sri. Prabhakar vs Joint Director Sericulture Department on 7 September, 2015
8. A careful perusal of the specific reference made under
Section 10(1) of the Act, which has been taken note herein
above, itself reveals that the question with regard to delay and
laches was required to be decided by the Tribunal while
considering the claim of the workman. It is not in dispute that
at no point in time, dispute, if any, was ever raised by the
workman qua specific reference made to the Labour Court by
the Appropriate Government, rather, the workman by way of
filing claim, made an attempt to justify the delay caused in
making the reference, as such, there appears to be no force in
the argument of Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the
::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2019 21:58:00 :::HCHP
-6-
workman that the learned Tribunal could not have gone into
the question of delay and laches, while ascertaining the claim
of the workman. The Apex Court, in Prabhakar v. Sericulture
.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Workmen Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor ... vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr on 3 October, 2016
11. The question with regard to competence of the Labour
Court to award compensation in such like cases is no more res
integra. The Apex Court in Workmen Rastriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (2016) 9 SCC
431 and Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh v. Employers,
(2017) 1 SCC 264, has dealt with the issue at hand and has
proceeded to award compensation to the tune of `4.00 Lakh to
each of the workmen in the latter case, as such, argument
advanced by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General that no compensation could have been awarded on
account of delay in raising the dispute, deserves outright
rejection.
Asstt.Engr. Rajasthan ... vs Mohan Lal on 16 August, 2013
into consideration and mould the relief. In such cases, it is
open for the Court to either grant reinstatement with back
wages or lesser back wages or grant compensation instead of
reinstatement. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon
following judgments rendered by Apex Court, viz.; Rajasthan
State Agriculture Mktg. Board v. Mohan Lal (2013) 14 SCC
543; U.P. SRTC v. Ram Singh (2008) 17 SCC 627; Dharappa
v. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (2007)
9 SCC 109; Asstt. Engineer, CAD v. Dhan Kunwar (2006) 5
SCC 481 and Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588.