Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 136 (1.83 seconds)
Documents citing Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Anr on 9 January, 2001

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. And ... on 3 August, 2005

The petitioner had alleged the relationship of employer and employee while the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had denied the existence of such relationship. The defence raised by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was bona fide and in fact the petitioner himself had indirectly admitted that there was no direct employer -employee relationship between the respondent No. 1 and the workmen but was claiming relationship on the basis of alleged functional integrality of operations. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. and ors. (supra) and Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and ors. (supra) that issue could not be heard and decided by the Industrial Court exercising powers under Section 28 of the ULP Act. That issue had to be decided first by an appropriate forum under Section 10 of the I.D. Act or the BIR Act as the case may be. The Industrial Court was thus right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint so far as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - D G Karnik - Full Document

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. Wire Division Thr Its ... vs Maharashtra Shramjivi General Kamgar ... on 22 October, 2024

Had the three-Judge Bench stopped katkam Page No. 21 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2024 01:11:11 ::: k 22/30 1_wp_9664.21_as.doc therein, we have no other option except to apply the principle as stated in General Labour Union (Red Flag) case , Vividh Kamgar Sabha case , Cipla Ltd. case , Sarva Shramik Sangh case and Oswal Petrochemicals . However, from para 23 onwards, the three-Judge Bench discussed the main issue with which we are concerned, namely, "whether from the material on record it could be held that the workmen are, in fact, the employees of the management for all purposes".
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vastsalabai Vishnu Jadhav And Another vs Marathwada Medical Research And Rural ... on 30 October, 2015

13 The Apex Court, in Kalyani Steel's Case (supra) has considered the ratio laid down in the Krantikari Suraksha Case (supra) and the Red Flag case (supra) and held that when the workmen have not been accepted by the Company to be it's employees, a complaint under the ULP Act would not be maintainable before the Labour or Industrial Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Prakash Kashiram Sawant And Othersq vs M/S Motherson Advanced Tooling ... on 3 July, 2019

Needless to state, the issue of whether the respondent is an employer and whether there is an employer employee relationship, will not be maintainable before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court in view of the Law laid down in Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs Kalyani Steels Ltd., (supra), Cipla Limited (supra) and Steel Authority of India (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Ramesh S/O Champatrao Yeole And Another vs Chief Conservator Of Forest (T), ... on 29 October, 2018

as its employees and throughout treated these persons as the employees of the second respondent. If that dispute existed ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:07:24 ::: 14 wp3284.17 throughout, we think, the Labour Court or the Industrial Court under the Act is not the appropriate court to decide such question, as held by this Court in General Labour Union (Red. Flag) Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd and Ors. (supra), which view was reiterated by us in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. and Anr., 2001 (I) CLR 532 SC."
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R B Deo - Full Document

Laxmibai Dilip Hiwarale And Others vs Marathwada Medical Research And Rural ... on 30 October, 2015

13 The Apex Court, in Kalyani Steel's Case (supra) has considered the ratio laid down in the Krantikari Suraksha Case (supra) and the Red Flag case (supra) and held that when the workmen have not been accepted by the Company to be it's employees, a complaint under the ULP Act would not be maintainable before the Labour or Industrial Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Shailesh S/O Murlidhar Tiwari And ... vs Chief Conservator Of Forest (T), ... on 19 October, 2018

as its employees and throughout treated these persons as the employees of the second respondent. If that dispute existed throughout, we think, the Labour Court or the Industrial Court under the Act is not the appropriate court to decide such question, as held by this Court in General Labour Union (Red. Flag) Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd and Ors. (supra), which view was reiterated by us in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. and Anr., 2001 (I) CLR 532 SC."
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R B Deo - Full Document

Dhairyasheel S.Phalake And Ors vs B.S.Bhadange And Ors on 4 February, 2025

It appears that attention of this Court was not invited to the judgments in Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. (supra) and Cipla Limited (supra) at the time of passing order dated 23 February 2001. Be that as it may. Since this Court has directed Industrial Court to conduct enquiry into the issue as to whether Petitioners are employees/workmen within the meaning of the Act, in my view, it would be too iniquitous at this stage to dismiss the present Petition only on the ground of impermissibility of Industrial Court to decide the issue of existence of employer-employee relationship and to relegate them to the remedy of seeking reference 7 2001 (2) SCC 381 katkam Page No. 17 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2025 22:31:15 ::: k 18/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court for establishment of the relationship. Therefore an unusual course of action is being adopted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case by examining correctness of finding recorded by the Industrial Court on the issue of existence of employer-employee relationship.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhairasheel S.Phalake And Ors vs Shri.B.S.Bhadange And Ors on 4 February, 2025

It appears that attention of this Court was not invited to the judgments in Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. (supra) and Cipla Limited (supra) at the time of passing order dated 23 February 2001. Be that as it may. Since this Court has directed Industrial Court to conduct enquiry into the issue as to whether Petitioners are employees/workmen within the meaning of the Act, in my view, it would be too iniquitous at this stage to dismiss the present Petition only on the ground of impermissibility of Industrial Court to decide the issue of existence of employer-employee relationship and to relegate them to the remedy of seeking reference 7 2001 (2) SCC 381 katkam Page No. 17 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2025 22:31:16 ::: k 18/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court for establishment of the relationship. Therefore an unusual course of action is being adopted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case by examining correctness of finding recorded by the Industrial Court on the issue of existence of employer-employee relationship.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhairasheel S.Phalake And Ors vs Shri.B.S.Bhadange And Ors on 4 February, 2025

It appears that attention of this Court was not invited to the judgments in Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. (supra) and Cipla Limited (supra) at the time of passing order dated 23 February 2001. Be that as it may. Since this Court has directed Industrial Court to conduct enquiry into the issue as to whether Petitioners are employees/workmen within the meaning of the Act, in my view, it would be too iniquitous at this stage to dismiss the present Petition only on the ground of impermissibility of Industrial Court to decide the issue of existence of employer-employee relationship and to relegate them to the remedy of seeking reference 7 2001 (2) SCC 381 katkam Page No. 17 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2025 22:31:12 ::: k 18/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court for establishment of the relationship. Therefore an unusual course of action is being adopted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case by examining correctness of finding recorded by the Industrial Court on the issue of existence of employer-employee relationship.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next