citedby: 1833085

1. Ba Security Agents Employees Union vs . on 1 April, 2019

"The DDA in terminating the services in terms of the contract had not in any manner varied the terms of service of the members of the petitioner union in that case and therefore there was no question of seeking any express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceedings were pending because the services got extinguished by efflux of time on the expiry of their contract. It was further held that if the DDA had tried to terminate the services before the . 17/21 contract was over then the workmen would have been protected under section 33."

Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Dal Bahadur Thapa vs The on 2 April, 2019

"The DDA in terminating the services in terms of the contract had not in any manner varied the terms of service of the members of the petitioner union in that case and therefore there was no question of seeking any express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceedings were pending because the services got extinguished by efflux of time on the expiry of their contract. It was further held that if the DDA had tried to terminate the services before the contract was over then the workmen would have been protected under section 33."

Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ba Security Agents Employees Union vs Regional Labour Commissioner & Ors on 8 March, 2010

In holding so, the Single Judge relied upon the judgment dated 6th January, 1993 of the Division Bench of this Court in CW(P) 1305/1991 titled Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. DDA. I have called for a copy of the said unreported judgment of the Division Bench. In that case also the DDA had employed the members of the petitioner union as security guards on a term contract and the union had moved the Industrial Tribunal for regularization of their services. The union by way of the writ petition sought a direction from this Court that the services of its members be not terminated during the pendency of the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal as they were protected under Section 33 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court held that the DDA in terminating the services in terms of the contract had not in any manner varied the terms of service of the members of the petitioner union in that case and therefore there was no question of seeking any express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceedings were pending, because the services got extinguished by efflux of time on the expiry of their contract. It was further held that if the DDA had tried to terminate the services before the contract was over then the workmen would have been protected under Section

Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 11 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Dagar Son Of Sh. Ran Singh vs The Management Of M/S Taj Sats Catering ... on 26 July, 2018

"The DDA in terminating the services in terms of the contract had not in any manner varied the terms of service of the members of the petitioner union in that case and therefore there was no question of seeking any express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceedings were pending because the services got extinguished by efflux of time on the expiry of their contract. It was further held that if the DDA had tried to terminate the services before the contract was over then the workmen would have been protected under section 33."

Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhagat Singh Son Of Sh. Ishwar Singh vs The Management Of M/S Taj Sats Catering ... on 26 July, 2018

"The DDA in terminating the services in terms of the contract had not in any manner varied the terms of service of the members of the petitioner union in that case and therefore there was no question of seeking any express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceedings were pending because the services got extinguished by efflux of time on the expiry of their contract. It was further held that if the DDA had tried to terminate the services before the contract was over then the workmen would have been protected under section 33."

Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Complainant/ vs Respondent/ on 16 January, 2015

In holding so, the Single Judge relied upon the judgment dated 6th January, 1993 of the Division Bench of this Court in CW(P) 1305/1991 titled Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor Union (Regd.) V. DDA. I have called for a copy of the said unreported judgment of the Division Bench. In that case also the DDA has employed the member of the petitioner union as Security guards on a term contract and the union had moved the industrial dispute before Industrial Tribunal for regularization of their services. The union by way of the Writ Petition sought a direction from this Court that the services of its member be not terminated during the pendency of the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal as they were protected under Section 33 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court held that the DDA, in terminating the services in terms of the contract, had not in any manner varied the terms of service of the members of the petitioner union in that case and therefore, they was not question of seeking any express permission in writing of the authority, before which the proceedings were pending, because the services got extinguished by efflux of time on the expiry of their contract. It was further held that if the DDA had tried to terminate the services before the contract was over, then the workmen would have been protected under Section 33. It was further held that the question of regularization was already pending before the Labour Court.

Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search