Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.57 seconds)
Documents citing Inthru Noronha vs Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. And Ors. on 19 January, 2005

Rutu Enclave vs Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. on 26 October, 2010

operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ajit Singh 2005 II CLR 66, decision of the Supreme Court in Mukesh K. Tripathi Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors. 2004 III CLR 534, judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dhruba Kumar Changkokoti Vs. Travel Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. 2000 II CLR 644, judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Inthru Noronha Vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. & Ors. 2005-III LL.J. 95, judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M. G. Bhide Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R More - Full Document

Aeroflot Russian Airlines vs Mohan Kumar Sharma And Anr. on 14 July, 2014

(a) 1994 (5) SCC 737 H.R.Adyanthaya vs Sandoz (India) Ltd. (b) 2004 (8) SCC 387 Mukesh K Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors. (c) 2005 (3) SCC 232 Management of M/s Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ajit Singh (d) 2005 LAB.I.C 1500 Inthru Noronha vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. and others (e) 2006 (92) DRJ 37 Bennett Coleman & Co. Limited vs Yadeshwar Kumar (f) 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 781 Ganga Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Jaivir Singh (g) 139 (2007) DLT 623 Sunita Sharma vs. Sarika Gulati & Anr. (h) 138 (2007) DLT 743 Jasbir Kaur & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. (i) 2007 (93) DRJ 448 K. George Chaco vs. The Secretary (Labour) & Anr. (j) 2007 (93) DRJ 616 Standing Conference of Public
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - V K Rao - Full Document

Aeroflot Russian Airlines vs Rajinder Upadhayay & Anr. on 14 July, 2014

(a) 1994 (5) SCC 737 H.R.Adyanthaya vs Sandoz (India) Ltd. (b) 2004 (8) SCC 387 Mukesh K Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors. (c) 2005 (3) SCC 232 Management of M/s Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ajit Singh (d) 2005 LAB.I.C 1500 Inthru Noronha vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. and others (e) 2006 (92) DRJ 37 Bennett Coleman & Co. Limited vs Yadeshwar Kumar (f) 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 781 Ganga Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Jaivir Singh (g) 139 (2007) DLT 623 Sunita Sharma vs. Sarika Gulati & Anr. (h) 138 (2007) DLT 743 Jasbir Kaur & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. (i) 2007 (93) DRJ 448 K. George Chaco vs. The Secretary (Labour) & Anr. (j) 2007 (93) DRJ 616 Standing Conference of Public
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital vs Ashoka Shetty And Anr on 11 January, 2024

6. Mr. Paranjape, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, did not pose unto himself the correct question. It is the nature of the duties which is of determinative significance. The learned Presiding Officer unjustifiably discarded the evidence and the material which unmistakably demonstrates that respondent No.1 was rendering services as Supervisor. Laying emphasis on the 'job description' dated 11th February, 2003, Mr. Paranjape submitted that most of the duties which respondent No.1 was required to perform, were purely supervisory in nature. Yet, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, returned a finding that respondent No.1 was a workman without following the ratio of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Reserve Bank of India vs. Waman Baburao Shinde and others 3, Vinayak Baburao Shinde vs. S. R. Shinde and others4, Vandana Joshi vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai 5 and Inthru Noronha vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. and others6.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

A S Raghavendra vs M/S Bharati Airtel Limited on 29 November, 2019

(d) similarly, the reliance of the respondent - Management on the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, in the case of VANDANA JOSHI VS. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., LAWS (BOM) 2010-10-50 again does not much advance its case; at para no.7, the Court observed that the question as to whether a person is a workman or not, needs to be decided with reference to the nature of the duties performed by him, the nomenclature of the position/post being insignificant; the Court referred to another decision in the case of INTHRU NORONHA VS. COLGATE PALMOVLIVE INDIA LTD., LLJ (2005) 3 LLJ 95, and held that the appellant a bank employee who had power to sanction leave and initiate disciplinary proceedings was a workman; in fact, this decision could be banked upon by the petitioner in this Writ Petition also;
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - K S Dixit - Full Document
1