Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the payment of bonus amendment act 2007 Page 1 of about 15,245 results (0.355 seconds)

Babasaheb Kedar Shetkari Through Its Chairman and Another Vs. Madhukar ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... the industrial court has directed the petitioner-employer to pay the difference of bonus for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-08 as per the provisions of the amended section 12 of the payment of bonus act, 1965 on the basis of monthly salary or wages of rs.3,500/- instead of rs.2,500/, after deducting the amount of bonus already paid for the said period to such employees. ..... the industrial court has recorded the finding that the petitioner-employer has not led any evidence to prove the balance-sheets for the concerned period in respect of his claim that the allocable surplus under section 15 of the payment of bonus act available with him does not permit declaration of bonus at the maximum limit of 20% on the basis of monthly salary of each employee to be considered at rs.3,500/- for the accounting years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. ..... shri puranik, the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer admits the declaration of bonus under subsection (1) of section 11 of the payment of bonus act at the rate of 20% for the accounting years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the payment accordingly on the basis of the salary or wages of rs.2,500/-per mensem. .....

The Management of Apsrtc Rep. by Its Vice Chairman and Managing Direct ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(4)ALD422; 2008(3)ALT774; (2009)ILLJ439AP

..... , of one year would be reviewed in the subsequent year, that the corporation had been paying ex-gratia to its employees at the same rate as given in the payment of bonus act, that it had been enhancing the bonus, and the upper wage limit, as and when the payment of bonus act was amended, that it had been paying ex-gratia to employees who were not eligible, that they had paid the enhanced rate of bonus to all eligible employees in 1995-96 as per the amendment made to the payment of bonus act in the year 1995 and that this payment had become a service condition by long practice ..... it is contended that grant of enhanced ex-gratia for the year 1993-94, based on the amended payment of bonus act, depended on several factors, that the payment of bonus act had no application to the apsrtc, that the employees of the corporation had no statutory right to claim ex-gratia as per the rate fixed under the payment of bonus act, that the right of employees of the corporation to claim ex-gratia for any particular period could only be in accordance with the agreement/settlement entered into between the petitioner and the recognized union under section 12(3) of the i.d. ..... it is contended that the dispute raised by the respondent union, for payment of ex-gratia for the year 1993-94, was a demand which was raised in the strike notice dated 15.03.2007. .....

Union of India and Others Vs. All India Postal Ed Employees Union (Pun ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... (i) where an agreement or a settlement has been entered into by the employees with their employer before the commencement of the payment of bonus (amendment) act, 1976 (23 of 1976).or (ii)where (ii)where the employees enter into any agreement or settlement with their employer after such commencement, for payment of an annual bonus linked with production or productivity in lieu of bonus based on profits payable under this act, then, such employees shall be entitled to receive bonus due to them under such agreement or settlement, as the case may be: provided that any such agreement ..... we may note that the ceiling limit was increased from ` 2,500/- to ` 3,500/-, as per amending act no.45 of 2007. ..... in the end, we must clarify that the petitioners not only sought to deprive the gds of the benefits but also sought to make recovery for the payments already made in two divisions in the punjab circle for the two years in question i.e.2006-07 and 2007-08. ..... the dispute is relatable to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. .....

J.K. Acrylics Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : (1997)IILLJ608Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC1

..... during the pendency of the writ petition, the parliament had passed the payment of bonus (amendment) act, 1995 (hereinafter called amending act) and the ordinance was replaced by act 34 of 1995. ..... he has submitted that non-payment of the bonus or delayed payment of bonus means that the contravention of the provisions of the bonus act have been made and is punishable under section 28 of the act, and for the reason that he had already paid the bonus for accounting year 1993-94 before coming into force of the amending act, as per the terms of the settlement arrived at between the employer and the employees, and additional liability cannot be created to pay bonus to those employees, who have now been brought under the provisions of the act to receive the bonus by making the act applicable to all those employees drawing ..... counsel for the petitioner tried to make a feeble attempt that as per the agreement not only, he had paid the bonus to those employees, who were entitled to at that time when the settlement was entered into, but he had also paid sufficient amount as ex gratia to all the employees whether they were falling under the ambit of the payment of bonus act or not and thus, if the petitioner is forced to comply with the provisions of the amending act for the accounting year 1993-94, it will amount to a double payment.29. .....

P. Venugopal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2008)4MLJ696(SC); 2008(7)SCALE255; (2008)5SCC1; 2008(3)SLJ189(SC); 2008(3)Supreme651

..... in madan mohan pathak's case (supra), the question of finality was taken into consideration only for the purpose of enforceability of the direction of the calcutta high court in respect of payment of bonus under the settlement of class iii and class iv employees and it was held that irrespective of the question of constitutionality of the amendment act, the calcutta high court judgment operating inter parties and becoming final was ..... with the provisions of this sub-section, cease to hold office on ..... section (1a) with its proviso added to section 11 of the aiims (amendment) act, 2007 reads as follows:(1a) - the director shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier.provided that any person holding office as a director immediately before the commencement of the all india institute of medical sciences and the post-graduate institute of medical education and research (amendment) act, 2007, shall in so far as his appointment is inconsistent .....

M/S.Ohm Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 and A ...

Court : Mumbai

..... to state that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment; (iv) on the contrary, the record would indicate that there was a full disclosure of the factum of payments, of the agreements under which commission/performance bonus was paid and of the basis for the payments and there was a detailed explanation on the part of the assessee justifying the payments; and (v) in respect of the years in question, the assessee proceeded to deduct tax at source on the basis that what has been paid ..... on going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the act, we find that, prior to direct tax laws (amendment) act, 1987, reopening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the ao to make a back assessment, but in s.147 of the act (w.e.f. ..... following the principle which has been enunciated in the supreme court decision, we have come to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessment for a.y.2007-08 was on a mere change of opinion and was impermissible in law. ..... for these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessments under section 148 for a.ys.2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 is contrary to law. ..... on the contrary, the record would indicate that the assessee had initially by a letter dated 12 march 2007 and subsequently by a letter dated 31 august 2007 placed on the record before the a.o. .....

Pix Transmissions Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... 3 from raising any dispute or demand having financial implication, still the petitioner has paid bonus in accordance with the provisions of payment of bonus act,1965 and he, therefore, submits that when it is question of compliance with statutory provisions, clause 33 is not applicable. ..... in support of his contention that clause 33 of settlement cannot operate as bar to demand for minimum wages, he points out that section 25 of the minimum wages act, prohibits contracting out and he also relies on the provisions of section 23 of the contract act to urge that such settlement will otherwise be opposed to law and public policy and, therefore, void. 13. ..... their workmen, (supra) while considering the scope and ambit of dispute of a reference order under section 10(1)(d) of industrial disputes act, has found that the tribunal has to look to the pleadings of parties to find out exact nature of dispute because in most of the cases, the order of reference is so cryptic that it is impossible to cull out therefrom the various points about which the parties were at variance leading to the trouble. ..... in this backdrop, inviting attention to communication containing grievance of non-receipt of said minimum wage made on 4.10.2007 and its immediate rejection, he contends that thus a dispute about wages arose. ..... clause 4 of the settlement dated 14.8.2006 is pressed into service to show that it impliedly amends basic wage payable under minimum wages act. .....

Vidya Sagar Bulaqi Ram Vs. the State

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1962P& H487

..... (2) it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even on the allegations contained in the first information report no offence under section 6(1) of the criminal law (amendment) act, 1960, is disclosed, and the continued detention of the petitioner without ever putting the case in court was abuse of the process of law as the authorities are anxious to keep him in custody by hook or crook being aware of the fact that his ultimate conviction even on the allegations made by the prosecution was not likely. ..... both the cases cited on behalf of the state are clearly distinguishable on facts, and as sub-section (2) of section 6, criminal law (amendment) act, itself lays down, there is nothing to prevent the court from granting bail to an accused who is charged with an offence under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the same act, once the court is satisfied that on the basis of the material placed before it there is reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner was guilty of the offence of which he is accused. ..... gujral, on the other hand, contends that no such inference can be drawn from the speech read as a whole, and even if the contention put forward on behalf of the state is accepted, the offence would still be not one that would fall under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the criminal law (amendment) act, 1960. .....

Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Classic Credit Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... amendment) act, 2007, in re (2008) 3 mplj311 answered the reference and held that all cases pending before the court of the judicial magistrate, first class as on 22-2-2008 remained unaffected by the amendment and were triable by the judicial magistrate, first class as the amendment act did not contain a clear indication that such cases also have to be made over to the court of session. ..... the underlying principle of the change of law brought about by the amendment in the year 1956 was to enable the claimants to have a cheap remedy of approaching the claims tribunal on payment of a nominal court fee whereas a large amount of ad valorem court fee was required to be paid in civil court. v. ..... the question that arose was whether the claim petition was maintainable having regard to the fact that the cause of action had arisen prior to the change of the forum for trial of a claim for payment of compensation. ..... the question that arose was whether the claim petition was maintainable having regard to the fact that the cause of action had arisen prior to the change of the forum for trial of a claim for payment of compensation. ..... the underlying principle of the change of law brought about by the amendment in the year 1956 was to enable the claimants to have a cheap remedy of approaching the claims tribunal on payment of a nominal court fee whereas a large amount of ad valorem court fee was required to be paid in civil court. 11. .....

C.N. Sharma and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1979Delhi525

..... this was followed by circular dated 23rd june, 1976 in which the following order of the chairman was reproduced: (1)the employees of the corporation are not entitled to bonus under the payment of bonus act, 1965 in view of section 32 thereof inserted by the amending act no. ..... (11) the present writ petition is filed by the class i employees impugning the validity of the circular, dated 26th september, 1975 stopping the payment of bonus to them until further orders as also the circular dated 23rd june, 1976 staling that while the employees will not be eligible for bonus under the payment of bonus act or the settlements entered into under section 18 of the industrial disputes act or the previous agreements or administrative instructions relating to payment of bonus, the central government have decided to grant them an ex gratia payment in lieu of bonus as may be determined taking into account the wage level, the financial ..... it was followed by the life insurance corporation (modification of settlement act, 1976, denying to the class iii employees of the corporation the right which had been recognised by the settlements between them and the corporation to the payment of bonus. ..... further section 32 of the payment of bonus act excludes the employees of the corporation from the applicability of that act. ..... (2) the non-profit sharing bonus is not governed by the payment of bonus act, 1965. .....