Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.74 seconds)
Shri Tukaram Sadashiv Madiwal vs M/S. S. J Iron And Steel Pvt. Ltd on 25 April, 2019 cites

Raghubir Singh vs Director General Of Police & Anr. on 31 August, 2012

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners firstly urged that under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947, an employee can approach the authorities under the Act of 1947 any time. No limitation is stipulated. He would submit that the resignations were obtained forcibly in the year 2002. Thereafter the settlement which is not binding on the petitioner was entered into by recognised Union on 12/7/2004. According to him, the Labour Court has wrongly considered the delay to be of five years. He submitted that the Labour Court has adopted a hyper technical approach while refusing to condone delay. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General 6 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 20:26:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/06/2019 DDR 7 901. wp 11078-15.doc Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in (2014) 10 SCC 301, learned Counsel would submit that the delay need not come in the way of the employees as in any case the ultimate reliefs can be moulded suitably. He would further submit that the settlement is not binding as the same is not in accordance with law. Learned Counsel, relying upon the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in respect of similar situate employees, would contend that the Labour Court having allowed the claim of similar situate employees in Reference (IDA) Nos.89 to 95, 97 to 122, 146 and 148 of 2003, even these applications deserve to be allowed.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 27 - P Nandrajog - Full Document
1