Skip to content

Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Aug 01 2006

Kailash Chand Saigal Vs. Om Parkash and ors.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Aug-01-2006

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT192; [2006(111)FLR540]; (2007)ILLJ144Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.9.1994 passed by the Labour Court.2. The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding this writ petition are that respondent No. 1, Om Parkash, alleged that his services were terminated by the petitioner illegally and a reference was made to Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the legality/illegality of termination of his service. In the claim respondent-workman alleged that he was employed with the petitioner since 1976 as a Sweeper on a monthly salary of Rs. 130/-. He asked management for wages according to minimum wages notification which annoyed the management and his services were terminated with effect from 16.6.1978 without any reason and without issuing any charge sheet or show notice or without holding any enquiry. He served a demand notice on 2.7.1978 on the management claiming reinstatement. In the written statement, it was stated by the management that reference was bad as before Con...


Aug 01 2006

Dr. Anil Kumar Jain, Partner JaIn Hospital Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi a ...

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Aug-01-2006

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT71; [2006(111)FLR277]

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of respondent No. 1 dated 9th October, 2005 whereby respondent No. 1 had withdrawn reference pending before Labour Court No. 5 of Shri S.S. Handa and transferred the same to Labour Court No. 9 presided over by Shri R.K. Jain. 2. Fact relevant for deciding this writ petition are that two references of industrial disputes between the workmen and the petitioner were assigned to two different Labour Courts, one to Labour Court No. 5 and other to Labour Court No. 9. AR of the workmen made application to the Government for assigning the two cases to anyone of the Labour Courts for disposal to avoid different treatment between the similarly placed workmen. On the request of AR of the workmen, without any notice to the petitioner, reference pending before the Labour Court No. 5, was withdrawn from Labour Court No. 5 and transferred to Labour Court No. 9 where the other reference was pending. 3. The writ petition...


Aug 01 2006

Javed Offset Printers Vs. Presiding Officers and anr.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Aug-01-2006

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT338; [2006(111)FLR279]; 2007(3)SLJ507(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the Award of Labour Court dated 8.2.1996.2. Brief facts are that two Workmen Abdul Qayum and Naeem were working with the petitioner as machine man and ink man respectively on monthly wages Rs. 750/- and Rs. 300/- per month respectively. Both lodged claim with Labour Commissioner about non payment of wages as per Minimum Wages Act. They also raised demand for other legal facilities. It is alleged that the petitioner instead of giving the facilities as per different labour laws and wages as per Minimum Wages Act, terminated the services of both the Workmen on 8.8.1984 without giving any reason or charge sheet or holding an inquiry. Workmen raised industrial dispute and reference was made to the Labour Court to the following effect:Whether the services of S/Shri Abdul Qayum and Naeem have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiable if so to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this...


Aug 01 2006

Emsons Radio Corporation and Shri Laxman Aswani S/O Shri Mengh Raj Asw ...

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Aug-01-2006

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT454; [2006(111)FLR112]; (2007)ILLJ140Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the Award passed by Labour Court on 24.1.96 and also challenged the reference made by the Government of India under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act ( for short the Act ) on 24.4.96 referring the following dispute:Whether the services of Shri Ram Avadh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?2. Facts in brief are that respondent Workman claimed that he was working as Machine Man on monthly salary of Rs. 440/- and his services were illegally terminated without complying with the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act on 17.5.87. He got issued a demand notice but despite this he was not reinstated. A reference of dispute was made to Labour Court. Workman filed claim stating that he was still unemployed. He prayed for reinstatement with full back wages. Employer in his reply disputed the date of appointment ...


Aug 01 2006

Chefair Hotel Corporation of India Limited Through Agm Chefair Flight ...

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Aug-01-2006

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT623

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 10.12.90 and 14.12.94. Vide order dated 10.12.90 the Tribunal had held that domestic inquiry was vitiated and vide order dated 14.12.94 the Tribunal passed an order directing the management to pay a sum of Rs. 800/- per month to the workman with effect from 25.7.1986 till the final Award was passed. 2. As far as writ petition against order dated 10.12.1990 holding that the inquiry was vitiated is concerned, it ought to be dismissed since the petitioner will get a chance to lead evidence before Tribunal to prove misconduct of the workman, I thereforee, dismiss the writ petition against order dated 10.12.1990. 3. As far as interim relief to the workman is concerned this Court in Delhi State Cooperative Bank v. R.C. Yaduvanshi and Anr. 34 (1998) DLT 258, held that Labour Court had jurisdiction to grant interim relief in case Labour Court prima facie comes to the conclusion that perhaps W...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial