Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.63 seconds)Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
Recently, in case of Manager, Mittal Steel Mfg. Co. v. Chotha Ram and Anr. reported in 2005 (106) FLR 654, Rajasthan High Court observed after considering case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas and Anr. relevant decisions on the issue and then observed as under in Para 23 of the judgment:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Mohan Lal vs Management Of M/S Bharat Electronics ... on 21 April, 1981
The Supreme Court did not interpret the Mohan Lal's case nor had overruled the said authority. But has distinguished the same on the facts and different provisions of law.
State Of U.P. And Others vs Rajesh Kumar Misra on 17 November, 1992
In case of S.M. Nilanjkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka , Apex Court observed that delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relating to adjudication being lost and rendered not available, [also See : U.P. State Electricity Board v. Rajesh Kumar 2005 SCC (L&S) 183 where delay in raising of an industrial dispute of 19 years was considered by Apex Court and condoned by Apex Court on the ground that the order of reference was not challenged by employer before higher forum and employer participated in proceedings before labour Court and suffered award. Labour Court granted full back wages but granted it only from the date of reference and not from the date of termination. According to Apex Court, looking to from all angles, substantial justice is done and it does not require interference.
Sur Enamel And Stampingworks (P) Ltd vs Their Workmen on 7 May, 1963
In Sur Enamel and Stampaing Works Ltd. v. Workmen, interpreting Sections 2(eee) and 25B, it was held that twin conditions were required to be fulfilled before a workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an industry. It must be shown first that the workman was employed for a period of not less than twelve calendar months and next that during those twelve calendar months, he had worked for not less than 240 days. In that case, the workman had not been employed for a period of twelve calendar months. Therefore, the Court held that it was necessary to examine whether actual days of work were 240 or more for in any case the requirements of Section 25B would not be satisfied by the mere fact of number of working days being not less than 240 days. The effect was that if a workman completes actual 240 or more days of work in less than twelve calendar months, he could not be entitled to the benefit of beneficial legislation. This anomaly led to the amendment of the I.D. Act in the manner above-stated.