Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 19 March, 2010 cites

The State Rep. By The General Manager vs K. Mohammed Mustafa on 14 September, 2006

If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of the above said decisions, it could be seen that neither the petitioner nor the respondent Corporation appear to have been aware of the beneficial provisions of the Act. When the respondent Corporation which is wholly owned Company of the State Government itself was not aware of the beneficial provisions of the Act and has entered into a settlement with the petitioner under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner, who was only a conductor, cannot be expected to be aware of the provisions of the Act. As observed by the Division Bench of this Court in State V. K.Mohammmed Mustafa (Supra), the benefit envisaged under Section 47 of the Act can be considered to be in addition to the benefits contemplated under the Government Order. If any additional benefits or higher benefits are contemplated under the Act as compared to the rights conferred under G.O.Ms.No.746 dated 02.07.1981 and if such provisions of the Act are made applicable, it cannot be said that such action in any way derogates from the provisions incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.746 dated 02.07.1981. On the other hand, the same can be said to be additional provisions and a person is entitled to more beneficial provision available either under the Act or under the Government Order. In this case, the Section 18(1) settlement between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation was entered into only in terms of G.O.Ms.No.746 dated 02.07.1981. As stated above, neither the petitioner nor the respondent Corporation were aware of the beneficial provisions of the Act. As such, the contentions of the Transport Corporation that as the petitioner had entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, the petitioner is estopped from invoking the provisions of Section 47 of the Act cannot be countenanced. It is well settled that there cannot be estoppel against a statute. When the petitioner is clothed with a legal right to claim all the benefits as per Section 47 of the Act, the said right cannot be taken away on the basis of the said 18(1) settlement. As stated above, the settlement itself was arrived at in terms of the above said Government Orders and when the provisions of Section 47 are more beneficial to the petitioner, it is always open to him, to invoke the same and claim the benefits. The ratio laid down by the two Division Bench decisions referred to supra squarely apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - P K Misra - Full Document

G. Muthu vs The Management Of Tamil Nadu State ... on 25 August, 2006

12. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to interpret the ambit and scope of the aforesaid provision of law in a similar case in G.Muthu V. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai), Limited, (represented by its Managing Director), Madurai 2007 (1) L.L.N.246. It was held therein that discharge of an employee by the Transport Corporation ignoring the enabling provision under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 on the sole ground of colour blindness afflicting the employee without providing an alternative job is not justifiable. It has also been held that the employee is entitled to the protection of the provision under Section 47 of the said Act.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 46 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document
1