Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi on 15 April, 2000

Chief District Health Officer And 2 Ors. vs Kantaben B. Makwana on 8 December, 2005

In support of his submission he relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi reported in 2001 (2) GLH 447, wherein this Court has observed that in fact, to continue a person for a very long time under temporary orders may amount to Unfair Labour Practice within the meaning of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Clause " 10 of the Fifth Schedule lays down that employment of workmen as Sbadlis, casuals or temporaries and continuing them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen, may amount to Unfair Labour Practices. The Court further observed that the Industrial Court has fund that the action of the Management was deliberate and intentional not to give status of permanency to the present respondent with an object of depriving her the benefit of law. The Court further observed that though it is, no doubt, true that in case of a fixed term appointment, in view of Section 2(oo)(bb), the provisions of Section 25-F may not have any application, the Court, exercising powers under the Industrial Disputes Act, can very well go into the questions whether the powers are exercised bona fide, whether it is by way of victimization or whether it is passed solely with the object of depriving the employee the benefit available under the Industrial Disputes Act. It cannot be said that even if the order is passed by way of victimization or in an arbitrary manner, or even if it is an unfair labour practice, then also simply because the appointment is for a fixed term, provisions of Section 25-F are not looked into at all. The Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the said provision cannot be brushed aside if it is brought to the notice of the Court that the order in question was passed by way of victimization or has not been passed with a bona fide intention. When the appellate Court has specifically come to the conclusion, on appreciation of the evidence, it would hardly make any difference whether the concerned employee has pleaded that case in her application or not.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Meghajibhai Sanabhai Bhimsuriya on 3 August, 2001

Otherwise, there was no occasion for the Standing Committee or the Board to record the continuance of the daily-rated workers. Attention of this Court is also drawn to some orders passed by the Officers of the Corporation, by which the employees of the Tax Department were sent to some other departments for work and the employees of one department was utilised in other departments. It is urged that therefore, if there is no work in Tax Department, these plaintiffs can be awarded work in other Departments as was done in the past by deputing them to some other department, but the approach of the Corporation is discriminative and violating the natural justice. For this contention, reliance is also placed on a decision of this Court as reported in 2001 (2) GLR 1248 in the matter of Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi. It is urged that with these 4 suits there were other six civil suits also, in which the plaintiffs are protected by the trial Court by the order of status quo. However, the Corporation has not filed the Appeals From Order against those orders and those plaintiffs are working with the Corporation. This shows the discriminative approach of the Corporation. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the statements of the posts of the Corporation and it was urged that in Tax Department itself there are vacant permanent posts even though the temporary posts are continued and plaintiffs are not appointed to those posts. It is urged that therefore, there is sufficient work for the plaintiffs by which they can be employed full time, in any of the departments. The plaintiffs are prepared to work in any of the departments of the Corporation and one plaintiff has filed an affidavit to that effect also. It is also argued that keeping this daily rated workers aside, the Corporation has employed private contractors for such work. The attention of this Court is also drawn to page 44 of the paper book. It is urged that the present daily rated employees are long standing working and they cannot be terminated in this manner specially when the allegation is juniors are retained and the present plaintiffs who are seniors are dismissed or discharged.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - J R Vora - Full Document

Pramod Pandey vs Regional Director, Esi Corporation on 26 September, 2000

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that not only that the employer has to show that the termination of the service was legal, it is further necessary to demonstrate that it was justified. Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Agra Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. Workmen, 1983 (1) SCC 436 : 1983-I-LLJ-304 and to the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Surat Manila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi, 2002 (2) GLR 603. As held by the Apex Court, when the reference is comprehensive enough to cover both the concepts, legality and justification, it is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to investigate whether the retrenchment is legal and, if legal, whether it is also justified and that the terms of reference should be construed liberally and the dispute should be determined in the context of social justice. In the facts of the present case, the justification of termination is so obvious that it requires no further probe into the matter. It has already been observed that the termination after the efflux of the period of the contract which was not extended on account of failure of the petitioners to pass the examination did not suffer from any arbitrariness and the renewal of the period from time to time did not amount to any unfair labour practice or victimisation. The petitioners having failed to clear the examination, the consequence compelled by their failure was their non-continuance especially when the candidates for regular appointment pending which the said ad hoc appointments were made, were available for appointment. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not normally examine the findings of the Tribunal unless demonstrated to be perverse and the Tribunal, in the present case, has on the cogent reasons discussed in the impugned Award, come to the conclusion that the breaks had not been artificially introduced to give rise to any inference of unfair labour practice and there was justification for non-continuance of the petitioners on account of their failure to pass the prescribed examination. No ground is, thus, made out calling for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jamnagar vs Navalsinh on 12 April, 2010

The Labour Court has considered decisions of Apex Court as well as this Court. The Labour Court has considered decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahkari Bank Vs. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi reported in 2001 (90) FLR 666, where question of 2(oo)(bb) has considered and such kind of service as completed by workmen can not covered any exception of section 2(oo)(bb) of I. D. Act, 1947 because none of workmen were appointed against specific project/skill and also not appointed against any specialized work. Therefore, Labour Court has come to conclusion that each workman has completed continuous service of 240 days and their services have been terminated without compliance of section 25 F of I. D. Act, 1947. Therefore, termination order has been rightly set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Ficom Organics Ltd vs Dharmendra H Shah on 7 October, 2015

(4) 2001 (2) GLH 1248 in the case of Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi about applicability of Section 2 (oo) (bb), 25B, 25F & 25G Schedule V, Item 11 of I.D.Act, 1947 vis-a-vis Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and Section 3 (13) (b) whereby it was held that once an employee completes 240 days service fact that the last letter of appointment or renewal stipulated automatic termination of service on the expiry of term mentioned therein would not take the case out of rigors of Section 25F and exception in Section 2(oo) (bb) would not apply in such a case and termination cannot be justified as covered by Section 2(oo) (bb) on the ground that appointment orders stipulated the period of contract of employment and hence termination did not amount to retrenchment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document
1