Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 177 (1.47 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Vartak Labour Union on 4 March, 2011

Deo Sharan Mishra Aged About 49 Years Son ... vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 12 April, 2013

In the circumstances, even if it be held that the transportation of milk is incidental to the purpose of factory or establishment, for want of any supervision of the appellants on the work of such employees, in our opinion, these employees are not covered by the definition of employee under Section 2(9) of the Act. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Vartak Labour Union (2) reported in (2011) 4 SCC 200 has been pleased to observe as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Unknown vs Union Of India Through Secretary To ... on 13 August, 2011

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present case with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the applicant for regularization keeping in view the decision of Madras Bench of Tribunal in O.A. NO. 1332 of 2000 and also the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vartak Labour Union (supra). While doing so, respondents will also keep in view the scheme dated 11.5.2011 issued by I.C.M.R. vide letter NO. 16/56/2011-Admn. II. As far as the claim of the applicant for her continuance in service till the age of 62 years is concerned, we find that the temporary engagement of an employee terminates when the same is discontinued. Once the applicant is not a regular employee, her services can be discontinued by the respondents at any time. Moreover a casual worker/Project worker cannot claim any age of superannuation. Their services are utilized on need basis. Thus on being regularized services of the applicant would be governed by the Rules and Regulation applicable to the post on which she would be regularized. In case the applicant is considered unfit for regularization, it would be open for the respondents to discontinue her services subject to need of organization. However, till consideration of applicant for her regularization, respondents would continue engaging the services of the applicant in present capacity.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Between The vs The on 31 August, 2015

16 Ld.AR for management further relied upon judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title Union of India and Ors. Vs Vartak Labour Union (2), (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 200 wherein it was held that "Merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original employment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules".
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandu vs M/O Defence on 26 April, 2019

3. The respondents have filed reply on 26th November, 2017. Raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the OA, they have stated that the applicant was a casual employee working in a museum being operating by non-public fund and, therefore, he cannot be said to be a Central Government employee. As the applicant was not a Central Government employee, the OA is not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The respondents have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2129-2130 of 2004 dated 4.3.2011 in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Vartak Labour Union, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that: -
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Zahir Alam vs M.D. U.P. Industrial Ltd. And Others on 15 February, 2019

Same view is also expressed in State of West Bengal & others Vs. Banibrata Ghosh & others 2009 (3) SCC 250; Council of Scientific & Industrial Research & others Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal & another 2009 (3) SCC 35; General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi & others 2009 (7) SCC 205; Union of India and others Vs. Vartak Labour Union, 2011(4) SCC 200; Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and others, 2012(6) SCC 502; University of Rajasthan and another Vs. Prem Lata Agarwal, 2013(3) SCC 705; Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and Ors. vs. State of Orissa and Ors., 2014(2) SCALE 589; Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2014 (3) AWC 2378 (SC); Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Ors. Vs. Thiru R. Govindaswamy and Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 769 and Director, Printing and Stationary Department, U.P. Government Press & Ors. Vs. Moti Lal and Ors., (2014) 2 UPLBEC 1193.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Bdg Metal & Power Limited vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 December, 2019

50. The petitioner also placed reliance on the notes of the different departments where proposals for approving the case of the petitioner as a pipeline case was approved by the Directorate as also Finance Department and the matter was placed before the Standing Committee of the Cabinet for a decision. However, the petitioner was never sent any communication with regard to such approval nor did the authorities write to the petitioner at any point of time that the case was approved by the departments and was awaiting the decision of the Cabinet. Reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in Union of India and Others vs. Vartak Labour Union(2) reported in (2011) 4 SCC 200 and the relevant portions of the above decision is quoted below:-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Sarkar - Full Document

M/S Ccc-Him vs Sjvnl (A Joint Venture Of Government Of ... on 30 September, 2020

Investments (2007) 1 SCC 477; Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 8 SCC 418; Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180; Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. W.B. Transport Infrastructure & Development Corp. Ltd., (2010) 6 SCC 330; Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty (2011) 12 SCC 69; Mutha Associates & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 14 SCC 304; Union of India Vs. Vartak Labour Union (2011) 4 SCC 200; Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Others Vs. Om Prakash Sharma (2013) 5 SCC 182; Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited Vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Post Trust and others, (2015) 13 SCC 233; South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Ravinder Kumar (2015) 15 SCC 545; State of U.P. Vs. Al Faheem Meetex Private Ltd. (2016) 4 SCC 716; State of Jharkhand and others Vs. CWE- Soma Consortium (2016) 14 SCC 172; Montecarlo Ltd. Vs. NTPC Ltd. (2016) 15 SCC 272; Haryana Urban Development Authority and others Vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Private Limited (2017) 4 SCC 243; Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority Vs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society (2018) 8 SCC 215; Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Another Vs. BVG India Ltd. & Another (2018) 10 SCC 462; PSA Mumbai Investments PTE.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next