Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Management, Malaysian Airlines vs The Presiding Officer, Principal ... on 11 June, 2007

State Of Gujarat vs Dipak Kumar Madhusudanbhai Gandhi on 25 April, 2008

13. Therefore, considering the above referred decision of this Court wherein this Court has considered various decisions of the apex court as well as other High Courts including the Division Bench of Madras High Court as well as the above referred recent decision of the Madras High Court in case of Management, Malaysian Airlines Chennai v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. (2007) 5 MLJ 1300, and also considering the facts of the case before hand which are not much in dispute between the parties and also considering that the contention of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947 was not raised by the petitioner before the labour court but it has been raised by the petitioner before this Court for the first time, this Court cannot entertain such contention as it has been raised before this Court for the first time. However, without entering into such technicality, this Court has examined the issue in light of the undisputed facts of the case before hand and examined whether Section 2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947 would apply to this case or not. According to my opinion, Section 2(oo) (bb) would apply when employer is able to justify the issuance of periodical appointment on the basis of facts and circumstances which could demand such kind of appointment, otherwise, it would mean that the employer is resorting to such provision only with a view to abuse the provision for getting benefit by creating disadvantageous situation for the workman and also to disentitle him or defeat his rights and protection available under the mandatory provisions of the ID Act, 1947. Therefore, if the employer is unable to justify issuance of such periodical or temporary orders of appointment or the orders of fixed term appointment confined for a particular project, then, same would not attract the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947. Similarly, labour court has also rightly observed having contradictory stand of petitioner from the very beginning and subsequent extension vide Exh. 49 and 50 which is suggesting that there is some ulterior motive or intention to take benefit or chance so that the workman may not be able to get justice from the labour court. I have considered the decisions referred to and relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati. In the said decisions, there was justification for issuance of such kind of periodical orders of appointment on temporary basis or for fixed term and in light of such situation, the apex court has considered that the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947 are applicable whereas in this case, the petitioner management has not been able to justify it before this Court and not raised such contention before the labour court but raised before this Court for the first time. It is necessary to consider one important aspect which is not in dispute that the respondent workman was appointed against the clear vacancy. That can be inferred from Exh.48, letter dated 22nd September, 1993 in favour of Mr. BB Patel who was appointed as Site Engineer at Bavla Point. Even the written statement also suggests the same avermetns as earlier Mr. BB Patel whose services were terminated while working as supervisor was directed to be reinstated, therefore, Mr. BB Patel was appointed from 23.9.1993 and therefore, services of the respondent were not extended and in view of that also, it is covered by 'retrenchment'. Meaning thereby, the post in which the respondent was working was vacant and clear post and on that post respondent remained in service continuously from 1991 to 1994 and in between, there was not a break of even a day and therefore, same is satisfying the requirement of Section 25(B) of the ID Act, 1947. As per the opinion of this Court, periodical appointment orders which were issued by petitioner and placed on the record by learned Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati is nothing but mere paper arrangement made by the petitioner for defeating the rights and claim of the workman available under the ID Act, 1947 and, therefore, according to my opinion, decisions referred to and relied upon by Mr. HJ Nanavati are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Labour Court has rightly examined the issue and has rightly adjudicated the matter on the basis of the record before it and has rightly granted the reinstatement in favour of the workman.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Deputy Executive Engineer vs Raj Amarsinh Fulsinh on 13 December, 2007

13. Therefore, considering the above referred decision of this Court wherein this Court has considered various decisions of the apex court as well as other High Courts including the Division Bench of Madras High Court as well as the above referred recent decision of the Madras High Court in case of Management, Malaysian Airlines Chennai v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. , and also considering the facts of the case before hand which are not much in dispute between the parties and also considering that the contention of sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947 was not raised by the petitioner before the labour court but it has been raised by the petitioner before this Court for the first time, this Court cannot entertain such contention as it has been raised before this Court for the first time. However, without entering into such technicality, this Court has examined the issue in light of the undisputed facts of the case before hand and examined whether sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947 would apply to this case or not. According to my opinion, sec. 2(oo)(bb) would apply when employer is able to justify the issuance of periodical appointment on the basis of facts and circumstances which could demand such kind of appointment, otherwise, it would mean that the employer is resorting to such provision only with a view to abuse the provision for getting benefit by creating disadvantageous situation for the workman and also to disentitle him or defeat his rights and protection available under the mandatory provisions of the ID Act, 1947. Therefore, if the employer is unable to justify issuance of such periodical or temporary orders of appointment or the orders of fixed term appointment confined for a particular project, then, same would not attract the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947. Similarly, labour court has also rightly observed having contradictory stand of petitioner from the very beginning and subsequent extension vide Exh. 49 and 50 which is suggesting that there is some ulterior motive or intention to take benefit or chance so that the workman may not be able to get justice from the labour court. I have considered the decisions referred to and relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati. In the said decisions, there was justification for issuance of such kind of periodical orders of appointment on temporary basis or for fixed term and in light of such situation, the apex court has considered that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947 are applicable whereas in this case, the petitioner management has not been able to justify it before this Court and not raised such contention before the labour court but raised before this Court for the first time. It is necessary to consider one important aspect which is not in dispute that the respondent workman was appointed against the clear vacancy. That can be inferred from Exh.48, letter dated 22nd September, 1993 in favour of Mr. BB Patel who was appointed as Site Engineer at Bavla Point. Even the written statement also suggests the same avermetns as earlier Mr. BB Patel whose services were terminated while working as supervisor was directed to be reinstated, therefore, Mr.BB Patel was appointed from 23.9.1993 and therefore, services of the respondent were not extended and in view of that also, it is covered by 'retrenchment'. Meaning thereby, the post in which the respondent was working was vacant and clear post and on that post respondent remained in service continuously from 1991 to 1994 and in between, there was not a break of even a day and therefore, same is satisfying the requirement of Section 25(B) of the ID Act, 1947. As per the opinion of this Court, periodical appointment orders which were issued by petitioner and placed on the record by learned Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati is nothing but mere paper arrangement made by the petitioner for defeating the rights and claim of the workman available under the ID Act, 1947 and, therefore, according to my opinion, decisions referred to and relied upon by Mr. HJ Nanavati are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Labour Court has rightly examined the issue and has rightly adjudicated the matter on the basis of the record before it and has rightly granted the reinstatement in favour of the workman.
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - H K Rathod - Full Document

N.Ramakrishnan vs The Presiding Officer on 29 April, 2024

14.It is seen from the judgment relied by the learned counsel for workman in Management, Malaysian Airlines, Karumuttu Centre, Chennai Vs. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and another reported in 2011 (2) CTC 245 that power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and it is not for the Writ Court to convert itself into a Court of regular Appeal or Revision so as to re-appreciate the entire evidence let in before the Labour Court. If only, it is established that the findings of the Labour Court is perverse, inasmuch as the same is based on no evidence or no reasonable man would have come to such a decision, it is not at all permissible in law to interfere with the said finding of the Labour Court in 18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3177 of 2011 and 25501 & 25502 of 2010 exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G Chandrasekharan - Full Document

Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation ... vs Pravinsinh Babubhai Chauhan on 28 November, 2007

2. Therefore, considering the above referred decision of this Court wherein this Court has considered various decisions of the apex court as well as other High Courts including the Division Bench of Madras High Court as well as the above referred recent decision of the Madras High Court in case of Management, Malaysian Airlines Chennai v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. (2007) 5 MLJ 1300, and also considering the facts of the case before hand which are not much in dispute between the parties and also considering that the contention of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947 was not raised by the petitioner before the labour court but it has been raised by the petitioner before this Court for the first time, this Court cannot entertain such contention as it has been raised before this Court for the first time. However, without entering into such technicality, this Court has examined the issue in light of the undisputed facts of the case before hand and examined whether Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947 would apply to this case or not. According to my opinion, Section 2(oo)(bb) would apply when employer is able to justify the issuance of periodical appointment on the basis of facts and circumstances which could demand such kind of appointment, otherwise, it would mean that the employer is resorting to such provision only with a view to abuse the provision for getting benefit by creating disadvantageous situation for the workman and also to disentitle him or defeat his rights and protection available under the mandatory provisions of the ID Act, 1947. Therefore, if the employer is unable to justify issuance of such periodical or temporary orders of appointment or the orders of fixed term appointment confined for a particular project, then, same would not attract the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947. Similarly, labour court has also rightly observed having contradictory stand of petitioner from the very beginning and subsequent extension vide Exh. 49 and 50 which is suggesting that there is some ulterior motive or intention to take benefit or chance so that the workman may not be able to get justice from the labour court. I have considered the decisions referred to and relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati. In the said decisions, there was justification for issuance of such kind of periodical orders of appointment on temporary basis or for fixed term and in light of such situation, the apex court has considered that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947 are applicable whereas in this case, the petitioner management has not been able to justify it before this Court and not raised such contention before the labour court but raised before this Court for the first time. It is necessary to consider one important aspect which is not in dispute that the respondent workman was appointed against the clear vacancy. That can be inferred from Exh.48, letter dated 22nd September, 1993 in favour of Mr. BB Patel who was appointed as Site Engineer at Bavla Point. Even the written statement also suggests the same avermetns as earlier Mr. BB Patel whose services were terminated while working as supervisor was directed to be reinstated, therefore, Mr.BB Patel was appointed from 23.9.1993 and therefore, services of the respondent were not extended and in view of that also, it is covered by 'retrenchment'. Meaning thereby, the post in which the respondent was working was vacant and clear post and on that post respondent remained in service continuously from 1991 to 1994 and in between, there was not a break of even a day and therefore, same is satisfying the requirement of Section 25(B) of the ID Act, 1947. As per the opinion of this Court, periodical appointment orders which were issued by petitioner and placed on the record by learned Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati is nothing but mere paper arrangement made by the petitioner for defeating the rights and claim of the workman available under the ID Act, 1947 and, therefore, according to my opinion, decisions referred to and relied upon by Mr. HJ Nanavati are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Labour Court has rightly examined the issue and has rightly adjudicated the matter on the basis of the record before it and has rightly granted the reinstatement in favour of the workman.
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 3 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Principal, S.V. Doshi Girls High School ... vs Lilaben Somabhai Gadasa on 9 January, 2008

12. Therefore, considering the law as discussed by this Court in the aforesaid petition and also in view of the facts of the present case, there is no substance in this petition and same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. See: (i) Gujarat Pollution Control Board v. Jagdish Nathabhai Chavada 2007 (3) GLH 356 and (ii) Management, Malaysian Airlines v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and Anr. 2007-III-LLJ 402.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 29 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Deputy vs Nanjibhai on 28 March, 2011

17. See decisions in case of (i) Rameshwar Dayal and Presiding Oficer, Labour Court No. VI, Delhi and another reported in 2007 (III) LLJ page 729; (ii) Executive Engineer versus Harisingh Modhbhai Gadhvi reported in 2007 (3) GLH 220; (iii)Dhrangadhra Municipality versus Ganpatbhai Jethabhai Makwana reported in 2007 (3) GLH 197; (iv) Gujarat Pollution Control Board versus Jagdish N. Chavda reported in 2007 (3) GLH page 356; (5) Management, Malaysian Airlines Chennai versus Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and another (2007) 5 MLJ 1300."
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document
1