Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.60 seconds)
Documents citing Management Of Dandakaranya Project, ... vs Workmen Through Rehabilitation ... on 7 January, 1997

Uoi vs Raju Kumar Shah on 20 January, 2020

44. Similarly, in Management of Dandakaranya Project, Koreput v. Workmen23, it was sought to be contended that the Dandakaranya Project, which was intended at rehabilitating refugees from Pakistan, was not an 'industry', as, in its administration, sovereign functions were being exercised. The Supreme Court negatived the contention, and held the Project to be an 'industry', and the persons, employed by the project, to be workmen, entitled to maintain an industrial dispute.
Delhi High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineering ... vs Avas Vikas Sansthan And Ors. on 25 April, 2000

In Management of Dandakaranya v. Workmen , the project had been wound up and there were no employment facilities for the employees for regular absorption. The assets and liabilities of the project stood transferred to the States of Orissa and M.P. Yet on account of interim order of the Court 425 workers while sitting idle were getting wages to the tune of Rs. 1.50 lakhs per month. Under those circumstances, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that directions issued by the Tribunal to find out work for the workers were erroneous.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Deep Chandra And Ors. on 14 November, 2003

In the case of Management of Dandakaranya Project, Koreput v. Workmen through Rehabilitation Employees Union and Anr., 1997 Lab IC 858, the Apex Court has held that the rehabilitation project undertaken by the Government of India to rehabilitate the refugees from Pakistan, 'popularly known as 'Dandakaranya Project' is 'an industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 4 November, 2003

In the case of Management of Dandakaranya Project, Koreput v. Workmen through Rehabilitation Employees Union and Anr., 1997 Lab IC 858, the Apex Court has held that the rehabilitation project undertaken by the Government of India to rehabilitate the refugees from Pakistan, popularly known as "Dandakaranya Project" is an industry within the meaning Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Employer In Relation To The Management ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 July, 2003

(k) That the casuals were paid Category I wages, [at page 207, Clause ix] From the details of the facts taken note of in the foregoing paragraphs, we have to bear in mind the dominant nature of the activities of the petitioner Company and the only inevitable conclusion is that it must be held that it is an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. To that extent the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Management of Danadakaranya Project, Koreput v. Workmen through Rehabilitation Employees' Union and Anr. reported in [1997) 2 SCC 296 goes against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - T Sen - Full Document

Irrigation Development Employees ... vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. on 16 March, 2004

In Management of Dandakaranya Project, Koreput v. Workmen through Rehabilitation Employees Union and Ors., , the Supreme Court while referring to G. Govinda Rajula 's case (supra) observed that "the said case neither there has been any discussion on any question of law nor any circumstances have been indicated under which the direction was given. This being the position the aforesaid decision cannot be of universal application in all cases where there has been a closure of the project which resulted in termination of the employees."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 56 - Cited by 7 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Ramesh S/O. Pandharinath Taharabadkar vs Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Project ... on 13 July, 2000

In a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Management of Dandakaranya Project, Koreput v. Workmen through Rehabilitation Employees Union and Anr. has observed as under to indicate that where a project is completed Section 25-FFF would be attracted and the affected workmen would be entitled to receive retrenchment compensation as provided thereunder 1997-I-LLJ-833 at 837.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R J Kochar - Full Document

Lal Mohammad And Ors vs Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd And ... on 4 December, 1998

Similarly, a decision of this Court in Management of Dandakaranya Project, Koraput v. Workmen through Rehabilitation Employees' Union & Anr., [1997] 2 SCC 296, also cannot be of any assistance to Shri Dave for the simple reason that in the said case the entire Dandakaranya Project was dosed down and the N.M.R. Workers who were working were held entitled only fo compensation under Section 25-FFF of the Act, It cannot be disputed, if the entire project is closed down and if the employees are only of the project they would be entitled to compensation under Section 25-FFF and if they are more man hundred workmen in mat project, additional requirement of following Section 25-D procedure may also have to be complied with if the industrial undertaking is not covered by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 25-O. It must, therefore, be held that the impugned notices of 1993 are retrenchment notices and not closure notice as tried to be submitted by Shri Dave. Once that conclusion is reached, as the workmen who were subjected to the impugned notices were stated to be retrenched from the project which employed more than hundred workmen at the given point of time, it was not Chapter V-A but only Chapter V-B which got attracted for retrenching such large body of workmen from the project. Hence, the procedure of Section 25-N had to be followed. As we have already held that Section 25-N would apply to the facts of the present case while deciding point no. 1, the net effect of the aforesaid conclusion of ours is that the impugned retrenchment notices which were issued without following the conditions precedent to retrenchment of such workmen as required by Section 25-N are necessarily to be treated to be void and of no legal effect. Point No. 2 is therefore, answered by holding that the impugned notices on account of non compliance of Section 25-N of the Act had no legal effect and were null and void and the employer-employee relationship between the parties did not get snapped and all the 25 appellants, therefore, continued to be in the service of the Respondent despite such null and void notices. Conclusion to the same effect as reached by the learned single Judge who allowed the writ petitions only on this ground must be held to be well sustained and has to be confirmed and the contrary decision of the Division Bench is required to be set aside, Point No. 3 will be considered along with Point No. 5. Point No. 4 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 40 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1   2 Next