Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.37 seconds)
K.H. Pandhi vs The Presiding Officer, Addl. Labour ... on 5 February, 2004 cites

South Indian Bank Ltd vs A.R. Chacko on 2 December, 1963

In South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. A. R. Chacko, of the questions considered was whether the Respondent therein, an accountant with a bank, was a workman or not. The admitted position was that his mere designation as an accountant would not take him out of the category of workman (paragraph 9 of the Report). The Supreme Court then observed in paragraph 11 of the Report that "The Labour Court appears to have taken proper note of this distinction between accountants who are really officers and accountants who are merely senior clerks with supervisory duties and on a consideration of the evidence on the record as regards the duties actually performed by the Respondent Chacko has come to the conclusion that he was merely a senior clerk, doing mainly clerical duties, and going by the designation of accountant and was in reality a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and doing an element of supervisory work."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 78 - K C Gupta - Full Document

M/S Essen Deinki vs Rajiv Kumar on 29 October, 2002

22. There is no dispute, as indeed there cannot be, with the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court. However, the question whether an employee is a workman or not is a mixed question of fact and law. Moreover, if the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court is in question, it can certainly be looked into by the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 230 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Syed Azam Hussaini vs The Andhra Bank Ltd on 31 January, 1995

In Syed Azam Hussaini vs. Andhra Bank Ltd., 1996 Supp (1) SCC 557, the Supreme Court awarded compensation in lieu of back wages. The quantum was fixed on the basis of the salary being paid to the Appellant therein at the time when his services were terminated. However, the Supreme Court did not indicate what was the salary of the Appellant therein when his services were terminated; but it appears from the decision that the Appellant in that case was working in the clerical grade in a bank, perhaps performing duties slightly akin to the Petitioner in the present case; but this is only a guess. In paragraph 14 of the Report, it was said: --
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 32 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And Vegetable ... on 24 March, 1998

In the present case, if the principle laid down in O.P. Bhandari were taken into account, the Petitioner would receive compensation of Rs.30,000.00, which appears on the facts of the present case to be quite inadequate. However, if the formula as adopted by the learned single Judge in Virender Singh is considered, then the Petitioner would be entitled to compensation of about Rs.1,00,000.00 which at the current rate of interest of about 9% would yield about Rs.9000 per annum which is slightly more than the annual salary that the Petitioner was getting at the time of his termination from service. This figure of Rs.1,00,000.00 is more or less in consonance with the amount of Rs. 75,000.00 awarded by the Supreme Court in Syed Azam Hussaini.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next