Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996

Sports Authority Of India vs Labour Commissioner, Delhi Admn. And ... on 12 March, 2014

103. While this was the state of law in regard to the contract labour, the issue of automatic absorption of the contract labour came up before a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Air India case (1997) 9 SCC 377. The Court held: (1) though there is no express provision in the CLRA Act for absorption of the contract labour when engagement of contract labour stood prohibited on publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, from that moment the principal employer cannot continue contract labour and direct relationship gets established between the workmen and the principal employer; (2) the Act did not intend to denude the contract labour of their source of livelihood and means of development by throwing them out from W.P.(C)Nos. 5574/99, 2482/02 & 5745/99 Page 25 of 30 employment; and (3) in a proper case the court as sentinel on the qui vive is required to direct the appropriate authority to submit a report and if the finding is that the workmen were engaged in violation of the provisions of the Act or were continued as contract labour despite prohibition of the contract labour under Section 10(1), the High Court has a constitutional duty to enforce the law and grant them appropriate relief of absorption in the employment of the principal employer. Justice Majmudar, in his concurring judgment, put it on the ground that when on the fulfilment of the requisite conditions, the contract labour is abolished under Section 10(1), the intermediary contractor vanishes and along with him vanishes the term "principal employer" and once the intermediary contractor goes the term "principal" also goes with it; out of the tripartite contractual scenario, only two parties remain, the beneficiaries of the abolition of the erstwhile contract labour system i.e. the workmen on the one hand and the employer on the other, who is no longer their principal employer but necessarily becomes a direct employer for erstwhile contract labourers. The learned Judge also held that in the provision of Section 10 there is implicit legislative intent that on abolition of the contract labour system, the erstwhile contract workmen would become direct employees of the employer in whose establishment they were earlier working and were enjoying all the regulatory facilities under Chapter V. in that very establishment.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Air India Limited vs Jagesh Dutt Sharma And Ors. on 11 September, 2006

I am advised to say that the petitioners, not being workmen are not contract labour and therefore, are not covered by the Notification No. S 779 (E) dated 9th December 1976 annexed hereto as Annexure R-II and thus does not come under the purview of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union 1996 (9) SCALE 70. The petitioners, therefore, have no right to regularization, being outside the scope of the aforesaid notification.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 12 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Central Warehousing Corporation vs Govt Of India And Ors on 31 May, 2022

The said judgment overruled the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union & Ors.8, wherein it had been held that though there is no express provision in the CLRA Act for absorption of the contract labour, when engagement of contract labour stood prohibited on publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, from that moment, the principal employer cannot continue contract labour and direct relationship gets established between the workmen and the principal employer.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

M.P. Singh & Ors. vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. on 29 August, 2011

However, the fact remains that the above judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union has itself been overruled in the Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1 and therefore, the judgment in Air India would no longer be good law. Learned counsel for the Petitioners then sought to distinguish the judgment in SAIL by referring to the clauses in the shareholders‟ agreement which permitted the Government to again takeover in the event of a threat to the security of the State.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Meera & Ors vs Mcd & Ors on 24 August, 2020

In Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2303/2016 Page 11 of 19 Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:24.08.2020 11:29:44 Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377 the Supreme Court held that there is no limitation or fetters on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution except self-imposed limitations. The Supreme Court held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next