Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)
Food Corporation Of India vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 November, 2023 cites

Sita Ram & Ors vs Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training ... on 5 March, 2008

Insofar as the case of Sita Ram (supra) is concerned, it also does not assist the employer in the light of the factual finding returned by the Controlling Authority. In the light of the above, the challenge made by the employer fails. On the issue as regards the right of the workman to seek enforcement of the order passed by the Appellate Authority in directing the employer to have a relook in the matter, it must be noted that the Appellate Authority was obliged to finally decide the appeal. It is the workman's case that he had rendered 33 years of service with effect 9 from 8th January, 1988. The Controlling Authority had rejected the aforesaid contention and had granted partial relief to the workman based on the factual finding noted above. Despite the Appellate Authority obliged to consider all issues raised in the appeal in the light of documents disclosed by the workman, the same had not been considered. Instead the same had been remanded back to be looked into by the employer, which in my view is not permissible. Although, the workman has sought for enforcement of the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority, by the employer, however, having regard to the submissions made by Mr. Chakraborty and since, the aforesaid direction is not legally sustainable, I am of the view no useful purpose will be served by directing the employer to reconsider the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 413 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963

18. The aforesaid factual finding returned by the Controlling Authority which was upheld by the Appellate Authority, thus, 8 cannot be said to be based on no evidence, and therefore, in my view cannot be interfered with. The Constitution Bench judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 477, do not sanction interference of a factual finding by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the same is based on some evidence. Having regard to the aforesaid, no interference to the aforesaid factual finding is called for.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1424 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1