Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Shertallai Taluk Co-Op. Land Mortgage ... vs Deputy Labour Commissioner on 22 June, 1990

K.M. Ulahannan vs Labour Court And Anr. on 6 June, 1996

5. In the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 the word "employee" has been defined on almost identical terms as definition of 'workman' in the Industrial Disputes Act. Question as to whether Secretary of a Co-operative Society is entitled to the benefits under Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Shertattai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 1990(2) KLT 175. The Bench took the view that the expression "employee" makes it clear that if a person is employed mainly in a managerial or a administrative capacity, he cannot be regarded as an employee for the purpose of the said Act. That statement according to us, will help to get at the actual scope and effect of the definition of 'workman' in the I.D. Act as well Consequently, if the nature of the work of the Secretary is such that he was holding the post in a managerial capacity, then he cannot be considered as a workman . As seen from averments made by the appellant in the claim petition filed before the Labour Court, appellant was in full charge of the executive administration of the society. A person who is employed as the head of the administration of the society must be deemed to be discharging duties in a managerial capacity. Such a person cannot be regarded as a workman as defined in the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

K. Nadarajan vs State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2011

7. I will deal firstly, with the decision of this Court in Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank's case (supra) relied on by the learned Government Pleader to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to get subsistence allowance. Evidently, that was a case where the Secretary of a Co-operative Society was placed under suspension. The question posed for consideration was whether he would fall within the category of employee for the purpose of payment of subsistence allowance under the Subsistence Allowance Act. Taking into account the duties and liabilities attached to the post of Secretary of a Co-operative Bank, the Division Bench held that it is, in fact, one in the managerial W.P.(C).19557/13 11 capacity and therefore, despite the fact that he is an employee of the bank, for the purposes of Subsistence Allowance Act, he could not be treated as an employee under Rule 198 (6) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. A Secretary of a Co-operative Society when placed under suspension was not entitled to subsistence allowance at that time. Obviously, it is only after an the amendment brought to the Co-operative Societies Rules that a Secretary of the a Co-operative Bank got the right to claim subsistence allowance in case of suspension. In the context of the contentions, the following observation in the said decision assumes relevance:-
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

The Channanikkadu Ksheerolpadaka vs K.C.Rajappan

2. The 1st respondent had initiated a proceeding as per Exhibit P1. A reading of Exhibit P1 would indicate that the 1st respondent was employed as the Secretary of the petitioner-Society. The ground raised by the petitioner-Society is that the 1st respondent being the Secretary of the Society, cannot be an employee as defined under the Subsistence Allowance Act. Reliance is placed on the decision in Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner [1990 (2) KLT 175]. Following the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court, the impugned order is set aside.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

The Trivandrum Sarvodaya Sangh vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner & ...

The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P6 order passed under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 [for brevity "the Act"]. The contention raised against Exhibit P6 is that the 2nd respondent was a Manager under the petitioner and, hence, was not entitled to the subsistence allowance under the Act for reason of the supervisory capacity held by her. The petitioner also places reliance on Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner [1990 (2) KLT 175], to buttress his contention.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document
1