Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (2.35 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 17 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Lalappa Lingappa & Ors vs Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., ... on 11 February, 1981
6. The leading authority on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Management was Lalappa Lingappa and Ors. v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. We may straightaway say that the present question whether Sundays and paid holidays should be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the number of days on which an employee actually worked, never arose there. The claim was under the Payment of Gratuity Act. All permanent employees of the employer claimed that they were entitled to payment of gratuity for the entire period of their service, that is, in respect of every year during which they were in permanent employment irrespective of the fact whether they had actually worked for 240 days in a year or not. The question there was not how the 240 days were to be reckoned ; the question was not whether Sundays and paid holidays were to be included in reckoning the number of days on which the workmen actually worked ; but the question was whether a workman could be said to have been actually employed for 240 days by the mere fact that he was in service for the whole year whether or not he actually worked for 240 days. On the language employed in Section 2(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the court came to the conclusion that the expression 'actually employed' occurring in Explanation I meant the same thing as the expression 'actually worked' occurring in Explanation II and that as the workmen concerned had not actually worked for 240 days or more in the year they were not entitled to payment of gratuity for that year. They further question as to what was meant by the expression 'actually worked' was not considered as apparently it did not arise for consideration. Therefore, the question whether Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the total number of days on which the workmen could be said to have actually worked was not considered in that case.
Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980
In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, we had occasion to say, "Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is, not to make inroads by making etymological excursions".
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Section 16 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Mohan Lal vs Management Of M/S Bharat Electronics ... on 21 April, 1981
3. The learned counsel appearing for the parties cited in the course of their submissions the decisions of this court in the Surendra Kumar Verma v. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr. , Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. Sholapur , Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. , Jeewan Lal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act 1984 (2) LLJ 464 and Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh v. Gwalior Sugar Mills Ltd .