Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
Municipal Council, Pathankot & Ors vs Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr on 25 January, 2018
cites
Workmen Represented By Hindustan V.O. ... vs Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation ... on 10 April, 2000
Only when the writ petition was admitted, the operation of the
award was stayed subject to the compliance of provisions of Section 17-B.
A perusal of the application under Section 17-B would go on to show that
for another period of 7 years, no application was filed and the application
dated 18.11.2013 was made wherein, a bald averment has been made that
the respondent-workman was not employed in any establishment. The same
was denied by filing reply wherein, specifically, it was mentioned that the
application was filed after 11 years and 5 months and there is no iota of
evidence to show how the workman had survived for those 11 years and 5
months. Section 17-B provides that the wages had to be paid if the
workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period.
As noticed, necessary affidavit in compliance of Section 17-B is dated
18.03.2013. It is hard for this Court to digest this fact that for all this long
period, the workman remain unemployed. The judgments referred to by
counsel for the appellants in Workmen reptd. by Hindustan Vegetable Oils
Corporation Ltd. vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd., 2000 (5)
SLR 218; Municipal Committee, Mohindergarh vs. POLC, Gurgaon,
2003 (1) SCT 726; M/s. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Satnam
Singh and others, 2009 (3) SLR 390 and Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T.
Patel, 1998 (1) SCT 57 would, thus, not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997
Only when the writ petition was admitted, the operation of the
award was stayed subject to the compliance of provisions of Section 17-B.
A perusal of the application under Section 17-B would go on to show that
for another period of 7 years, no application was filed and the application
dated 18.11.2013 was made wherein, a bald averment has been made that
the respondent-workman was not employed in any establishment. The same
was denied by filing reply wherein, specifically, it was mentioned that the
application was filed after 11 years and 5 months and there is no iota of
evidence to show how the workman had survived for those 11 years and 5
months. Section 17-B provides that the wages had to be paid if the
workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period.
As noticed, necessary affidavit in compliance of Section 17-B is dated
18.03.2013. It is hard for this Court to digest this fact that for all this long
period, the workman remain unemployed. The judgments referred to by
counsel for the appellants in Workmen reptd. by Hindustan Vegetable Oils
Corporation Ltd. vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd., 2000 (5)
SLR 218; Municipal Committee, Mohindergarh vs. POLC, Gurgaon,
2003 (1) SCT 726; M/s. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Satnam
Singh and others, 2009 (3) SLR 390 and Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T.
Patel, 1998 (1) SCT 57 would, thus, not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Mohinder Pal vs General Public And Ors on 1 February, 2017
However, when the review application was returned, delay of 1
year and 46 days has taken place in refiling the same. The only explanation
given is that the clerk of the counsel had put the file in a bundle of decided
cases. It is to be noticed that for a period of whole year of 2015, no
explanation has been given as to whether the workman-applicant ever
contacted the counsel to find out about the fate of his review application and
the delay as such cannot be held to be justified in any manner. 40 days
limitation is provided under the High Court Rules and Orders. This Court
in Mohinder Pal vs. General Public and another, 2017 (1) Law Herald
483 has held that inordinate delay as such without appropriate explanation
cannot be condoned at the asking. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion
that the delay in refiling the review application is not liable to be condoned
and C.M. No. 3369-CWP of 2016 is dismissed.
M/S Yamuna Gases And Chemical Limited vs Satnam Singh And Others on 27 January, 2009
Only when the writ petition was admitted, the operation of the
award was stayed subject to the compliance of provisions of Section 17-B.
A perusal of the application under Section 17-B would go on to show that
for another period of 7 years, no application was filed and the application
dated 18.11.2013 was made wherein, a bald averment has been made that
the respondent-workman was not employed in any establishment. The same
was denied by filing reply wherein, specifically, it was mentioned that the
application was filed after 11 years and 5 months and there is no iota of
evidence to show how the workman had survived for those 11 years and 5
months. Section 17-B provides that the wages had to be paid if the
workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period.
As noticed, necessary affidavit in compliance of Section 17-B is dated
18.03.2013. It is hard for this Court to digest this fact that for all this long
period, the workman remain unemployed. The judgments referred to by
counsel for the appellants in Workmen reptd. by Hindustan Vegetable Oils
Corporation Ltd. vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd., 2000 (5)
SLR 218; Municipal Committee, Mohindergarh vs. POLC, Gurgaon,
2003 (1) SCT 726; M/s. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Satnam
Singh and others, 2009 (3) SLR 390 and Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T.
Patel, 1998 (1) SCT 57 would, thus, not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
1