Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER
Dy General Manager State Bank – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM APPL. No.33092/2020
1. The prayer made in the application is as follows:
"It is therefore prayed that the petitioner management may be directed to release the difference of arrears amounting to Rs.3,62,268/- for the period 01.10.2011 to 30.10.2020 as calculated in para 5 above and continue to pay the further wages month by month as per minimum wage revised from time to time."
2. This is an application filed on behalf of the respondent-workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereafter referred to as the "I.D. Act"] pursuant to the order dated 2.2.2011.
3. To be noted, via the order dated 2.2.2011, this Court had disposed of the respondent-workman's earlier application, whereby the petitioner-bank was directed to pay to the respondent-workman last drawn wages or minimum wages; whichever was higher.
4. According to the respondent-workman, the petitioner-bank has paid Rs.1,47,350/- towards arrears of wages for the period spanning between 1.8.2008 and September 2011, albeit, at the rate of Rs.3,900/- per month.
4.1 The respondent-workman
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer is obligated to pay the minimum wages at the revised rate, as it would partially reduce the impact of the increase in the cost of....
The employer is required to pay revised minimum wages during litigation under the Industrial Disputes Act, ensuring financial justice for the workman.
When a worker submits an affidavit of unemployment during appellate proceedings, the burden of proving gainful employment shifts to the employer. In instances of significant, unexplained delay in fil....
Claiming wages - It is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part th....
Under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, a workman reinstated by court order is entitled to full wages pending appeal if he proves unemployment.
Where the award does not order for reinstatement, High Court does not get jurisdiction under Section 17B of the Act to pass an order under that provision.
The general rule is that the workman is entitled to the benefits under Section 17B from the date of passing of the award unless there is undue delay on the part of the workman in approaching the Cour....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
