Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)
The Director All India Institute Of ... vs The General Secretary, Delhi State ... on 31 October, 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].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 135 - S S Quadri - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 357 - D A Desai - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Jain vs Anju Choudhry And Ors. 39 Mcrc/207/2019 ... on 10 January, 2019

(ix) The Court while considering an application under Section 17B of the ID Act cannot go into the merits of the case, the Court can only consider whether the requirements mentioned in Section 17B have been satisfied or not and, if it is so, then the Court has no option but to direct the employer to pass an order in terms of the statute. It would be immaterial as to whether the petitioner had a very good case on merits [Re: 2000 (5) AD Delhi 413 entitled Anil Jain v. Jagdish Chander].
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 22 - R Dubey - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 62 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next