Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)
United Poly Engineering Private ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Polc V ... on 4 August, 2022
cites
Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Anr vs Ghanshyam on 8 May, 2001
(xvii) It will be in the interest of justice to ensure if the
facts of the case so justify, that payment of the amount over
and above the amount which could be directed to be paid
under Section 17B to a workman, is ordered to be paid
only on satisfaction of terms and conditions as would
enable the employer to recover the same [para 13
of Regional Manager, Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam].
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs Delhi Administration Through ... on 27 September, 1984
(x) A reasonable standard for arriving at the conclusion of
the quantum of a fair amount towards subsistence
allowance payable to a workman would be the minimum
wages notified by the statutory authorities under the
provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in respect of
an employee who may be performing the same or similar
functions in scheduled employments. [Re : Rajinder Kumar
Kundra v. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635; Sanjit
Roy v. State of Rajasthan, (1983) 1 SCC 525 : AIR 1983
SC 328;decision dated 3rd January, 2003 in Writ Petition
(Civil) Nos.
Sanjit Roy vs State Of. Rajasthan on 20 January, 1983
(x) A reasonable standard for arriving at the conclusion of
the quantum of a fair amount towards subsistence
allowance payable to a workman would be the minimum
wages notified by the statutory authorities under the
provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in respect of
an employee who may be performing the same or similar
functions in scheduled employments. [Re : Rajinder Kumar
Kundra v. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635; Sanjit
Roy v. State of Rajasthan, (1983) 1 SCC 525 : AIR 1983
SC 328;decision dated 3rd January, 2003 in Writ Petition
(Civil) Nos.
Dtc vs P.O, Industrial Tribunal No.Ii & Ors on 14 February, 2011
3654 & 3675/1999 entitled Delhi Council for
Child Welfare v. Union of India; DTC v. The P.O., Labour
Court No. 1, Delhi, 2002 II AD (Delhi) 112 (para 12, 13)]
Indra Perfumery Co. Thr. Sudershab ... vs Presiding Officer And Ors. on 9 December, 2003
Sudershab Oberoi v. Presiding
Officer, 2004 III AD (Delhi) 337].
Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 10 December, 2001
(xiv) Repayment to the employer could be secured by
directing a workman to give an undertaking or offer
security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (General) of the
Court or any other authority [Re : para 12, 2002 (61) DRJ
521 (DB), Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi (supra)]
Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997
(xv) In exercise of powers under Article 226 and Article
136 of the Constitution, if the requisites of Section 17B of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are satisfied, no order
can be passed denying the workman the benefit granted
under the statutory provisions of Section 17B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Re : (1999) 2 SCC
106, Dena Bank v. Kirtikumar T. Patel (para 23)].
(xvi) Gainful employment of the workman; unreasonable
and unexplained delay in making the application by the
workman after the filing of the petition challenging the
award/order; offer by the employer to give employment to
the workman would be a relevant factors and
consideration for the date from which the wages are to be
permitted.