Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (2.05 seconds)
Documents citing Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996

Bhavnagar Municipal Corp vs Bobby Tansukhrai Shukla & 2 on 13 April, 2017

Similarly, in the case of Air India Statutory Corpn.and Ors. v. United Labour Union and Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 377 (though this case is no more a good law with regard to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 because subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench has reversed this decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Watrerfront Workers, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1. But this case has been cited in the context of the interpretation of statute that how social welfare legislation should be interpreted. In that context their Lordships have observed that such a social legislation providing for a economic empowerment to workers and poor class a provision should be considered in the light of the public law principles not of private or a common laws. So far as the philosophy behind construing a social legislation is concerned, there is no two opinion, social legislation are primarily meant for welfare of the particular section of the society and it should be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of the public at large. But the question is in the present case whether the expression "shall" should be read mandatory so as to advance the cause of the apprentice or not. In our opinion, viewing from social legislation point of view the word "shall" appearing in sub- section (4) of Section 4 should be construed as directory because it will be for the benefit of the apprentice trainee otherwise it will be oppressive to the welfare of the apprentice as the employer can get away by not getting the contract of apprentice registered, seeking a declaration that this is a unregistered document and all benefits flowing from the Act cannot be enforced against him.
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - K M Thaker - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India Workers' ... vs Food Corporation Of India And Ors. on 17 November, 2000

However, considering this aspect the view taken by the Apex Court in case of Air India Statutory Corporation (supra), no doubt the same has been referred to the Larger Bench for hearing but meanwhile, binding effect of the said judgment to this Court will not make any difference. Said decision, so far, has not been reversed, is binding on this Court and this Court can and is required to consider the same.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

For Approval And Signature: Sd/ vs Dharmendra Udesinh Zala on 9 February, 2017

Similarly, in the case of Air India Statutory Corpn.and Ors. v. United Labour Union and Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 377 (though this case is no more a good law with regard to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 because subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench has reversed this decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Watrerfront Workers, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1. But this case has been cited in the context of the interpretation of statute that how social welfare legislation should be interpreted. In that context their Lordships have observed that such a social legislation providing for a economic empowerment to workers and poor class a provision should be considered in the light of the public law principles not of private or a common laws. So far as the philosophy behind construing a social legislation is concerned, there is no two opinion, social legislation are primarily meant for welfare of the particular section of the society and it should be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of the public at large. But the question is in the present case whether the expression "shall" should be read mandatory so as to advance the cause of the apprentice or not. In our opinion, viewing from social legislation point of view the word "shall" appearing in sub- section (4) of Section 4 should be construed as directory because it will be for the benefit of the apprentice trainee otherwise it will be oppressive to the welfare of the apprentice as the employer can get away by not getting the contract of apprentice registered, seeking a declaration that this is a unregistered document and all benefits flowing from the Act cannot be enforced against him.
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - K M Thaker - Full Document

Transport & Dock Workers Union vs Kandla Dock Labour Board And Ors. on 23 July, 1997

11. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as in view of the subsequent developments which have taken place during the pendency of this Special Civil Application, that from 1st August, 1993, the respondent No. 1 has not entered into any contract of labour with any party and all these workmen are working with the respondent No. 1, I consider it to be appropriate that the respondent No. 1 should examine the matter afresh by giving fresh though without any motives or ill-will against any of the workmen rather than relegating the petitioner to the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The respondent No. 1-Board after hearing the petitioner shall decide whether these persons should be continued in employment or not or how many persons it requires in the employment. While deciding this matter, the respondent No. 1-Board will take into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (supra). The petitioner is directed to send a xerox copy of this decision to the Board immediately on receipt of certified copy of this order or the petitioners representative may take the copy of this order along with him when he is called for personal hearing in the matter by the Board. The decision has to be taken by the Board after keeping in mind the fact that all these workmen are working for about more than 10 to 11 years with it and there may be increase of workload by passing of the time. For last about four years, the respondent No. 1 is paying the salary to these workmen, and there is no intermediary. So, this is another fact which is relevant to the claim of the workmen of regularising their services in the Board. However, this Court cannot compel the Board to take the workmen more in number than what it requires. If the employees are surplus even then this matter has to be considered by the Board and a reasoned order has to be passed by it. In case the matter is decided by the Board against the workmen as a whole or some of the workmen are not absorbed in the services, it is again hereby directed that a reasoned order has to be passed. This order, if made, shall not be given effect to for a period of two months from the date of despatch of the order to the petitioner. This order has to be sent to the petitioner by respondent No. 1-Board by registered post A.D. The question of regularisation of services of the workmen in question are lingering for years together, and as such, it is hereby directed that the respondent No. 1-Board to decide this matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the Board decides the matter in favour of the workmen then they shall be entitled for the consequential benefits which follows therefrom from the date of filing of the Special Civil Application i.e., 22nd July, 1993. The Special Civil Application and Rule stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Keshote - Full Document

Oil vs Parmar on 5 May, 2010

16. When the learned Single Judge considered the matter, the legal position was governed by the decision in Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Hindu Mazdoor Sabha 1995 (5) SCC 27, partly modified by Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union 1997 (9) SCC 377. by the time the Division Bench decided the writ appeal, the decision of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd., Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers 2001 (7) SCC 1 (for short 'SHAIL') had been rendered, but on account of the short gap between the two dates, the Division Bench did not notice the decision in SAIL.
Gujarat High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Bharat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. And Anr. vs K.L. Baria, Judge, Labour Court And Anr. on 20 November, 1997

33. Here what is being granted is an amount equivalent to subsistence allowance which is initially only 50% of the normal wages. As stated above, it is an order which will be invited by an unscrupulous employer. What is being awarded to the workman initially is only 50% of the wages and it is only if the inquiry in the Court does not get concluded within the stipulated time, despite diligence, that the allowance may get further revised, but that should not deter us and lead to depriving of the subsistence to the employees. Recently, in the context of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, reported in 1997 I CLR 292, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 25 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Hasmukhbhai Chimanlal Tapodhan vs State Of Gujarat on 19 July, 2022

8.0 Reliance is placed on behalf of the Page 15 of 71 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 20 21:07:46 IST 2022 C/SCA/6852/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2022 petitioners on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Limited and Others vs. United Labour Union and others in [(1997) 9 SCC 377, at page 445 Para:70], which reads as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document
1   2 3 Next