Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Government Transport Service, Bombay vs S.L. Mishra And Ors. on 19 April, 1995

Management Of Thanthai Periyar ... vs R. Jagadeesan And Anr. on 28 September, 1999

8. Per contra, Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent in the writ petitions, contends that the first respondent in these writ petitions, who are motor transport workers within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act, having been engaged by the employer and worked at the disposal of the employer, are entitled for salary as well as overtime allowance as per Section 26 read with Rule 26 for the total number of hours they have been engaged. Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel, also, placing reliance on the decision in Government Transport Service, Bombay, v. S.L. Mishra reported in (1996-III-LLJ (Suppl) -670) (Bom) contends that the circular relied on by the employer relating to travelling allowance rules is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as it cannot supercede the provisions of Section 26 of the Act and Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Transport Workers' Rules, 1965.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Hotel Saravana Bhavan vs The Deputy Labour Inspector on 8 September, 2011

16. The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 was held applicable even to the transport workers employed in the Government Transport Service Department as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 10 SCC 291 (Government Transport Service v. S.L.Mishra & Others), wherein in para 2 it is held thus, "2. The Government set up a separate department known as Government Transport Service which had to maintain vehicles and provide transport with the help of its staff. The material placed before the High Court in the shape of the government resolutions, department circulars, the affidavits filed thereto indicated that the vehicles of the Government Transport Service are given out against payment, that regular bills are raised in respect of charges which are even described as hire charges. In certain cases when such vehicles are given for the use of VVIPs, VIPs and State guests such charges are paid by the department concerned of the State Government. In other cases where charges are not borne by the State Government the charges are paid by the person using the vehicle. In these circumstances there cannot be any doubt that the Department of GTS is an undertaking engaged in carrying passengers, as defined in Section 2(g) of the Motor Transport Workers Act and is covered by sub-section (4) of Section 1. ......"
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

M/S Auto Cars, Aurangabad vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 14 August, 2015

10. A "motor transport worker" is a person who is employed in a motor transport undertaking directly or through an agency as is defined in Section 2(h) hereinabove. The Act of 1961 u/s 1(4) applies to every "motor transport undertaking" and "motor transport workers". The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government Transport Service Vs. S.L.Mishra, 2002(3) LLJ 265, is therefore applicable to this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document
1