Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Junagadh Municipal Corporation vs Dipakbhai Pratapbhai Karamata on 13 July, 2020

At Ahmedabad, In Case Titled As Junagadh ... vs . on 16 August, 2023

However the Hon'ble High Court observed in the above case that even after introduction of the Section 2 (oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, the courts have to remain vigilant and see that such power is not exercised malafide, arbitrary and misused and courts are empowered to remove the veil LIR No. 3212/17 Page 6 of 14 and see the reality of the matter. The Hon'ble Court surveyed the available case law. The following extracts of some of the cases taken note by Hon'ble Court are worth quoted.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sartaj Ali vs Ms Century Overseas on 13 October, 2023

10. Issue No. 2. Whether the workman was appointed for fixed tenure w.e.f. 02.08.2013 to 31.01.2014 if so, its effect? OPM It is contention of the management that the workman was appointed for fixed tenure w.e.f. 02.08.2013 to 31.01.2014. On the other hand, the workman has contended that he was appointed in September 2011 and terminated on 10.10.2013. The management intends to take benefit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as per Ld. AR for the management the termination of the service of the workman as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment will not amount to retrenchment. The above exception i.e. Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act has come under judicial scrutiny several times particularly in the cases where the same is restored to arbitrary and only periodic extensions are given to the workman to deny them the protection of Section 20 F of Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Junagadh Municipal Corporation Vs. Dipakbhai Pratapbhai Karamata, CLPA 335 2020 has categorically observed that such excepted categories required a rigorous test. The following observations are relevant:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Mahavir Singh vs Ms Century Overseas on 13 October, 2023

10. Issue No. 2. Whether the workman was appointed for fixed tenure initially w.e.f. 01.02.2013 to 31.07.2013 and which was later on extended from 01.08.2013 to 31.01.2014, if so, its effect? OPM It is contention of the management that the workman was appointed for fixed tenure initially w.e.f. 01.02.2013 to 31.07.2013 which was later on extended from 01.08.2013 to 31.01.2014. On the other hand, the workman has contended that he was appointed in September 2011 and terminated on 10.10.2013. The management intends to take benefit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as per Ld. AR for the management the termination of the service of the workman as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment will not amount to retrenchment. The above exception i.e. Section LC No. 705/2016 Page 6 of 12 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act has come under judicial scrutiny several times particularly in the cases where the same is restored to arbitrary and only periodic extensions are given to the workman to deny them the protection of Section 20 F of Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Junagadh Municipal Corporation Vs. Dipakbhai Pratapbhai Karamata, CLPA 335 2020 has categorically observed that such excepted categories required a rigorous test. The following observations are relevant:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prashant Ankush Borkar vs Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil ... on 30 July, 2025

9. The observations made by the Gujarat High Court in the above case are squarely applicable to the facts in the present case moreover when the workman has led cogent evidence by way of his bank statements and bank passbook to prove his continuous service for more than 3 years and 7 months which has gone uncontroverted. In view of the cogent evidence led by the workman it cannot lie in the mouth of the employer i.e. College that he was appointed for a specific period on temporary basis.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M N Jadhav - Full Document

Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil ... vs Prashant Ankush Borkar on 30 July, 2025

9. The observations made by the Gujarat High Court in the above case are squarely applicable to the facts in the present case moreover when the workman has led cogent evidence by way of his bank statements and bank passbook to prove his continuous service for more than 3 years and 7 months which has gone uncontroverted. In view of the cogent evidence led by the workman it cannot lie in the mouth of the employer i.e. College that he was appointed for a specific period on temporary basis.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M N Jadhav - Full Document
1