Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs Indian Oil Corporation Maintenance ... on 19 May, 2000

3. If notification under section 10(2) is issued by the appropriate Government then the said establishment in that process, operation or work to which such notification relates, the said establishment can not engage contract labour. Further existing contract labour would become direct employees of the Principal employer-Air India Statutory Corporation case (supra).
Calcutta High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 3 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sujan Banerjee And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 September, 2000

Air India Statutory Corporation (supra) ex facie has no application in the instant case, inasmuch as, therein the Apex Court has categorically held that the right of a contract labour to be absorbed in the service of the principal employer comes into being only upon issuance of a notification under Section 10 of the Act. In the instant case, not only no such notification has been issued, but no step in aid thereof has been taken by the appellants. It may be noticed that the correctness of the said decision is pending consideration before the Apex Court [See 1999(5) SCC 54].
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Commissioner Of Excise And ... vs Ved Prakash And Ors. on 15 March, 2002

"71. By definition the term "contract labour" is a species of workman. A workman shall be so deemed when he is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. A workman may be hired: (1) in an establishment by the principal employer or by his agent with or without the knowledge of the principal employer; or (2) in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor or by a contractor with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts as an agent so there will be master-and-servant relationship between the principal employer and the workman. But where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor, either because he has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment, a question might arise whether the contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai case and in Indian PetroChemicals Corporation Case ; if the answer is in the affirmative, the workman will be in fact an employee of the principal employer; but if the answer is in the negative, the workman will be a contract labour."
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005

[SCC para 29] In Air India Statutory Corporation and Others Vs. United Labour Union and Others [(1997) 9 SCC 377], (since overruled on another point) in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others [(2001) 7 SCC 1] this Court deliberated upon the distinction between the Private Law and Public Law. [SCC para 26].
Supreme Court of India Cites 83 - Cited by 4 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Workmen Of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt.Society ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 5 February, 2004

While answering the question in the negative the court reversed the earlier decision of this Court in Air India Statutory Corporation and Others vs. United Labour Union and Others [(1997) 9 SCC 377]. This Court referring to a large number of decisions and tracing the history of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, noticed that the Industrial Tribunal although prior to coming into force could issue directions for such regularization but such directions could not be issued after coming into force of the Act. In view of the Constitution Bench decision in M/s Gammon India Ltd. and Others etc. vs. Union of India and Others [(1974) 1 SCC 596], the Court held that although the principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose favour it is intended, the same would not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. Upon analyzing the case law, the categories of cases were sub-divided into three stating :
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 446 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next