Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing J.J. Shrimali vs District Development Officer, Mehsana ... on 8 August, 1988

Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board vs Pagi Malabhai Andarbhai on 17 December, 2003

This affidavit was made by the workman in the capacity of work charge helper before the Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Health (Scarcity) Sub Division, GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, Lunavada. Thereafter, he referred to the award made by the labour court which is at Annexure-D page 22. He read from paragraph 9 and thereafter, two contentions were raised by Mr. Chauhan that the workman was appointed in scarcity work and the workmen whose names have been mentioned in the award at page 29 were not working in the post of hand pump repairing helper and it was not proved by the workmen that they were working on that post and it was not proved that such kind of work was performed by them and thus such facts were not proved by the workmen and, therefore, the labour court has committed gross error in coming to such conclusion that the workmen should continue in service. He relied upon the decision of this court in the matter of J.J. Shrimali v. District Development Officer, Mehsana & Ors., reported in 1989 (1) GLR page 396 which is the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

K. Rajendran vs Director (Personnel), Project And ... on 6 March, 1991

in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the post of messenger in the Madras office of the respondent itself ceased to exist. When we reach the conclusion that the service of the petitioner as a messenger in the Madras office of the respondent was not terminated on the ground that the post itself ceased to exist. Sub-clause (bb) of Clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act will not apply to the facts of the present case. In other words, the said Sub-clause (bb) will not apply to the case of the petitioner, because, the respondent cannot use the terms of employment as a device to take it out of Clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the post of messenger in the Madras office of the respondent and the nature of the duties performed by the petitioner as a messenger in the Madras office of the respondent continued to exist even after the termination of the service of the petitioner with effect from 9 August 1986. Learned counsel for the respondent placed heavy reliance on the decision in J.J. Shrimali v District Development Officer, Mehsana, and Ors. [1990-I L. L N. 982], in support of his contention that the Sub-clause (bb) of Clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act will be applicable to the facts of the present case and the termination of the service of the petitioner will not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. The above decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case the appointment orders in terms provided that the appointment was being made purely on ad hoc and temporary basis and was to last till scarcity works were in progress and the contract of employment carried a stipulation that the service of the petitioners in that case will end as soon as the scarcity relief work is wound up or ceases. The petitioners in that case were, therefore, told in no uncertain terms that the duration of their engagement was co-extensive with the duration of the scarcity-relief works meaning thereby that their services will end on the closure of the relief works. That is not the position in the present case. The various letters exchanged between the head office of the respondent at Delhi, and branch office of the respondent at Madras, go to show that the post of messenger in the Madras office is a permanent post and that is the reason why steps were taken to regularise the service of the petitioner. For reasons not known, the service of the petitioner was not regularised, on the other hand the impugned order terminating the service of the petitioner came to be passed.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be ... vs Satishkumar P Madalani on 22 March, 2001

8.1As regards merits of the matter, he stated that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.J.Shrimali Vs. District Development Officer, Mehsana and others reported in 1989 (2) GLH 12 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of H.K.Makwana Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 1994(2) GLH 213, when the employees are employed in relief work they are not covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and it is a soverign function of the Government and therefore there is no useful purpose will be served in remanding the matter to the Labour Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Customs Central ... vs M/S Nagarjuna Consltruciton Co. Lt D., ... on 12 November, 2025

13. Two decisions were cited by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan for the petitioner. One is the decision of the division bench of this court in the matter of J.J. Shrimali Vs. District Development Officer, Mehsana and Others, and the another one is the decision of the full bench of this court in the matter of HK Makwana versus State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1994 (2) GLH 213 wherein the decision of the division bench of this court in the matter of J.J. Shrimali Vs. District Development Officer, Mehsana and Others, was approved by the Full Bench of this Court. I have considered the said two decisions cited by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan. In the said two decisions, the petitioner was not the GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD. In the said matter, work of particular project and relief as managed by the State of Gujarat has been considered to be the sovereign function. It was not the decision in the said matter that any industry, if it is performing any type of work in scarcity has to be considered as the sovereign function. That is not the ratio of the said decisions. I am, therefore, of the opinion that both the said decisions are relating to the sovereign functions of the state and not in respect of any industry. Therefore, both the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The facts of the present case and the facts of the said decisions are altogether different and there is no slightest similarity as regards the factual aspects of the matter and, therefore, said two decisions are not helpful to the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P S Koshy - Full Document

Indian Red-Cross Society vs Vidyaben H. Vyas on 27 August, 2003

Mr. Thakkar has also relied upon one decision in the case of J.J.SHRIMALI V. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MEHSNA AND OTHERS, 1990(1) LLN 982. Relying upon that decision, Mr. Thakkar has submitted that a periodical appointment made by the petitioner-Society and by efflux of time if the termination is taken place, that is not a retrenchment and Section 2(oo)(bb) is applicable and therefore, such termination is outside the scope of definition of 'retrenchment'. Except the above submissions, no other submission has been made by Mr. Thakkar before this court and no other decision has been relied on by the learned advocate Mr. Thakkar.
Gujarat High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 8 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Bhismaraj Meher vs The Director on 18 May, 2023

sovereign functions does not really exist 4 it would all depend on the nature of the power and manner of its exercise=. After referring to the three traditional sovereign functions namely legislative power, the administration of laws and the exercise of the judicial power and also the decision of the Gujarat High Court in J.J. Shrimali v. District Development Officer [(1989) 1 Guj LR 396] wherein famine and drought-relief works undertaken by the State Government were held not to be an <industry=, this Court observed that: <What really follows from this judgment is that apart from the aforesaid three functions, there may be some other functions also regarding which a view could be taken that the same too is a sovereign function.=
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Simla Devi vs Presiding Officer, Labour Courts And ... on 2 December, 1997

6. The Court also made reference to judgments of the various High Courts in Shailendra Nath Shukla v. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University and Ors., 1987 Lab.I.C. 1607; Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke v. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, 1990 Lab.I.C. 100; K. Rajendran v. Director, P.& E. Corpn. of India Ltd., New Delhi, 1992 Lab.I.C. 909; Jayabharat Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd, v. Labour Court, Kozhikode and Ors., 1994(11) L.L.J. 373; Balbir Singh v. Kurukshetra Central Co-op. Bank Ltd, 1990 L.L.J 443; Raj Bahadur v. General Manager, Food Specialities Limited, 8 (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 631; Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-op. Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1991(1) S.C.T. 697; Kurukshetra Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 1993(1) S.C.T. 109; J.J Shrimali v. District Development Officer, Zilla Panchayat, 1989 Lab.I.C. 689; Chakradhar Thripathi v. State of Orissa, 1992 Lab.I.C. 1813; Ram Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Lab.I.C. 2139. and M. Venugopal v. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, J.T. 1994(1) S.C. 281 and then held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 14 - B Rai - Full Document
1   2 3 Next