Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.39 seconds)

International Airports Authority ... vs International Airports Authority Of ... on 1 April, 2002

This submission has been rejected more than once by judgments of this Court that are binding on us. The Division Bench in Dyes and Chemical Workers Union v. Bombay Oil Industries Ltd, (supra), held that there was no finding in Vishakapatnam Dock Labour Board v. Stevedores Association, Vishakhapatnam, (supra), that there was a relationship of employer-employee between the registered employer and the dock labourers. It was observed that the issue raised for consideration was whether the Dock Labour Board was the employer and the same was answered in the negative. The Division Bench, therefore, held that it was not possible to deduce from this judgment that the registered employers. even under the Vishakapatnam Dock Labour Act and the Scheme were clearly held to be employers of the dock labourers allotted to them by the statutory board.
Bombay High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 23 September, 2022

9. The learned counsel for respondent no. 4 would argue that those 300 employees has to be permanent employees and he admitted that the industrial unit has 150 permanent 4 employees and more than 1000 contractual labourer. By relying upon a judgment of Bombay High Court in Dyes and Chemical Workers Union vs. Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. and Ors., O.O.C.J. Ref., in W.P. No. 1632 of 2000 along with L.P.A. No. 356 of 2000 decided on 23.01.2001, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the worker engaged on contractual basis are not to be included in calculating figure 300. However, the provision of Section 6W of the Act shall not be followed if two conditions are fulfilled (1) with respect to the number of employees and, (2) with respect to the seasonal or intermittently nature of industry.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S K Mishra - Full Document
1