Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-17-2005
Reported in : III(2005)ACC322; 2005ACJ1465; ILR2005KAR3671
..... the claimants as the provision is prospective in its application.ii) that section 5 of the limitation act had no application to the case and that there is no power for extension of the period of limitation on equitable ground. since the appellant no. 1 was working as a teacher in a school ..... is preferred to a literal construction, in case there is any doubt. in this case, the application of section 17-b of the industrial disputes act, 1947, for awards passed, before the introduction of the section fell for consideration. the apex court, holding that the labour court had the power to ..... ors. v. ram kumar and anr. (supra) a constitution bench of the apex court dealing with punjab pre-emption act, (1 of 1913), while interpreting section 15, as substituted by haryana amendment act, 1995 which vests right of pre-emption in tenant has held that the rule of benevolent construction cannot be ..... inter alia for:a) the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by the claims tribunal;b) the procedure (including provision as to limitation) to be followed by the claims tribunal;c) the exclusion of jurisdiction of all courts exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction relating to specified claims ..... the evidence. therefore, the same cannot be entertained. the various decisions which the learned counsel for the appellant has cited with regard to the limitation do not require to be referred to or noticed, having regard to the fact that we have already held that the claim itself is not .....Tag this Judgment!