Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996

Indian Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs The Learned 9Th Industrial Tribunal, ... on 2 December, 1999

19. Assuming such order Is to be taken Into account on the basis of the Judgment (Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union) (supra) delivered In the month of December 1996 wherein the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal on 20th August. 1982 much prior thereto. Therefore, the ratio of the Judgment of 1993 Suppl.
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Lala - Full Document

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

Kishan Jawanjal & Ors. vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. on 18 June, 1999

39. The contention and the submission made by the learned counsel as above, would have merited consideration, if the terms of the settlement were not in contravention, of or in violation of any accrued rights i.e. rights flowing from statutory provisions of the Act,1970. There can be little doubt that the offending portion of the settlement [clauses 5(ii) and (iii)] which confer power on the principal employer to throw out of the establishment the erstwhile contract labourers consequent upon abolition of contract labour is contrary to the Act.1970 and the very scheme of abolition of contract labour envisaged by section 10 of the Act. 1970 as already noticed above. The observations of His Loardship Majumdar in Air India's case (supra) are apposite on this aspect of the matter which read as under:
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs National Coal Workers Congress Union ... on 28 January, 2002

8. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel of the workmen. The learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal passed the award and issued directions following the decision of the Supreme Court in Air India case (supra), and as such this said award is not sustainable in the eye of law as the judgment or the Supreme Court in Air India case has been overruled by the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P K Chattopadhyay - Full Document

Sheikh Jahangir Ali And Ors. vs Calcutta Port Trust And Ors. on 27 January, 1999

14. It was also urged that the decision in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation (supra) did not apply to the facts of this case in the absence of a notification under Section 10(1) of the above Act. It was submitted that while on June 5, 1991, the Central Government had issued a notification prohibiting the employment of contract labour in certain areas of the Calcutta Port Trust, vulcanisation work had not been included in the said notification as such work did not require regular preventive maintenance as well as provisional overhauling and repairing, but was confined to repair work as and when required on account of snapping of conveyer belts or damage caused thereto during operation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - A Kabir - Full Document

Ballygunge Siksha Samity & Ors. vs Ms. Susmita Basu & Ors. on 29 February, 2000

67. Mr. Pal submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Air India Statutory Corporation case (supra) and of this Court in Ms. Overland Investment Ltd. case (supra) have no real bearing as far as this case is concerned, since it was not the case of the writ petitioners/ respondents that the school was an agency or instrumentality of the State. Mr. Pal submitted that admittedly the affairs of companies dealing with public money under supervision and control of the Reserve Bank of India which exercised deep and pervasive control, are amenable to writ jurisdiction, but it could not be said that the services of employees of such companies have any statutory under pinning which could be considered in the writ Jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 1 - A Kabir - Full Document

The Deputy Secretary (Mart), Dept. Of ... vs Miss Sanchita Biswas And Ors. on 27 January, 2000

8. In the instant case, there has been an infringment of right bestowed upon the petitioner by the Constitution and the central statute High Court's jurisdiction to issue appropriate writ for securing the right is well-settled and has been epitomized in the following decisions of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union has held, "The founding fathers pressed no limitation or fetters on the power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution except self-imposed limitations. The arm of the Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Court as Sentinel on the qui vive is to mete out justice in given facts. The right to judicial review is now a basic structure of the Constitution."
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - R Pal - Full Document
1   2 Next