Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Durg District Metal and Engineering Works

Durg District Metal and Engineering Works vs Managing Partner, Bhilai Construction Company, Industrial Estate, Bhilai District, Durg, Madhya Prad

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Mar 09, 1981
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/653784

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 940 of 1981
Subject
Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [ A.N.Sen and; v.D. Tulzapurkar, JJ.] - The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Durg, to decide the question whether the workmen were gainfully employed or not during that period.

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Durg District Metal and Engineering Works

Respondent

Managing Partner, Bhilai Construction Company, Industrial Estate, Bhilai District, Durg, Madhya Prad

Legal References

Reported In
(1982)3SCC386a

Excerpt

- [ a.n.sen and; v.d. tulzapurkar, jj.] - the matter is remanded back to the labour court, durg, to decide the question whether the workmen were gainfully employed or not during that period.tulzapurkar, j.1. special leave granted.2. after hearing counsel on either side we feel that the only question that needs consideration relates to back wages for the period may 13, 1971 till the order of reinstatement. the matter is remanded back to the labour court, durg, to decide the question whether the workmen were gainfully employed or not during that period. in case it is found that they were employed they would not get anything by way of back wages. but if it is found that they did not work elsewhere during that period they would be entitled to back wages for the said period. the appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Tulzapurkar, J.

1. Special leave granted.

2. After hearing counsel on either side we feel that the only question that needs consideration relates to back wages for the period May 13, 1971 till the order of reinstatement. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Durg, to decide the question whether the workmen were gainfully employed or not during that period. In case it is found that they were employed they would not get anything by way of back wages. But if it is found that they did not work elsewhere during that period they would be entitled to back wages for the said period. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1981 Same Parties Durg District Metal and Engineering Works vs Managing Partner... Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge A.N.Sen and; v.D. Tulzapurkar, JJ.
Labour and Industrial

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales