Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 176 (3.26 seconds)
Documents citing Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc vs Air India Ltd.& Ors on 25 August, 2014

3. Title: Cbi vs . (1) A. Raja (A­1); on 21 December, 2017

Thus,   this   authority   lays   down   that   whether   one  company is dummy for another is to be determined on the basis  of   evidence   led   on   record   by   the   parties.   It   is   the   case   of  CBI Vs. A. Raja and others                  Page 1176 of 1553 prosecution that STPL was a dummy of Reliance Group. 1494. Furthermore,   in   an   authority   reported  as  Balwant  Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Limited, (2014) 9 SCC 407, Hon'ble  Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 71 and 74 as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 584 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Superintending Engineer vs M. Murugan

36. The next contention of the Management that the Hon'ble Apex https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/32 W.A.Nos.1696 of 2021, etc., batch Court in Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India Limited [2014 (9) SCC 407] case cited above, has laid down certain tests to conclude whether the contract labour is a sham or nominal. In this case, admittedly, the Management was not able to produce any contract entered between the contractors and the Management to show that there was a genuine contract entered between the contractors and the Board herein. The Management has also failed to prove that the contractors are registered contractors. Factually the workmen were able to exhibit that they have been receiving payments and other perquisites from the Management and they were involved in perennial job and they were under control and supervision of the Management. Without any materials to show that the workers were engaged only by means of proper contract between the Board and the contractors and their proper accounts maintained between them regarding the payment of salary or remuneration, this Court is of the view that the Board is not entitled to contend that there was a genuine contract labour system followed by them.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

The Superintending Engineer vs M. Murugan

36. The next contention of the Management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India Limited [2014 (9) SCC 407] case cited above, has laid down certain tests to conclude whether the contract https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/32 W.A.Nos.1696 of 2021, etc., batch labour is a sham or nominal. In this case, admittedly, the Management was not able to produce any contract entered between the contractors and the Management to show that there was a genuine contract entered between the contractors and the Board herein. The Management has also failed to prove that the contractors are registered contractors. Factually the workmen were able to exhibit that they have been receiving payments and other perquisites from the Management and they were involved in perennial job and they were under control and supervision of the Management. Without any materials to show that the workers were engaged only by means of proper contract between the Board and the contractors and their proper accounts maintained between them regarding the payment of salary or remuneration, this Court is of the view that the Board is not entitled to contend that there was a genuine contract labour system followed by them.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 10 November, 2023

In Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India Limited [2014 (9) SCC 407] case cited above, the Apex Court has laid down certain tests to conclude whether the contract labour is a sham or nominal. In this case, admittedly, the Management was not able to produce any contract entered between the contractors and the Management failed to show that there was a genuine contract entered between the contractors and the Management herein. The Management has also failed to prove that the contractors are registered contractors. Factually the workmen were able to exhibit that they have been receiving payments and other perquisites from the Management and they were involved in perennial job and they were under control and supervision of the Management. Without any materials to show that the workers were engaged only by means of proper contract between the Management and the contractors and proper accounts maintained between them regarding the payment of salary or remuneration, this Court is of the view that the Management is not entitled to contend that there was a genuine contract labour system followed by them.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

For Approval And Signature vs Workmen Represented By Bijlee Mazdoor ... on 31 August, 2017

In the decision in case of Air India Limited & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court explained 6 factors or criteria which should be examined to ascertain as to whether the contract labourers Page 56 HC-NIC Page 56 of 69 Created On Sat Sep 02 20:34:00 IST 2017 C/SCA/16912/2005 CAV JUDGMENT can be treated as employees of the company (principal employer). Hon'ble Apex Court explained that for the said purpose, it should be considered as to who appoints the workers, who pays the remuneration, who has the authority to take disciplinary action and terminate the worker and whether there exists complete control and supervision with the principal employer. With reference to the observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision, it is necessary to keep in focus the fact that in the said case, the Court was examining the claim by contract labourers engaged in statutory canteen and since service of the said workers were terminated, the question of legality of termination of service was also under consideration. In the said case, the labourers claimed that they should be deemed to be employees of Air India merely on the ground that they worked in canteen established on the premise of respondent Air India as the consequence of statutory obligation under Section 46 of the Factories Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - K M Thaker - Full Document

Subansiri Lowr H.E. Project Constract ... vs National Hydroelectric Powr ... on 28 February, 2020

In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. (Supra), the Apex Court held that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer-employee relationship would include inter alia: (i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who pays the salary/ remuneration (iii) who has the authority to dismiss (iv) who can take disciplinary action (v) whether there is continuity of service and (vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision. By applying the above test, it can only be seen that the members of the petitioners Union are paid their wage or remuneration through the Contractors engaged by the NHPC. The same is evident from the documents annexed by the NHPC in their affidavit-in-reply filed on 31.01.2018.
Gauhati High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - N Sailo - Full Document

Vandana Farms & Resorts Private Limited vs Shri Colonizers And Developers Private ... on 19 May, 2020

AIR 1955 Trav-Co 65 and MuthuGounder's case, AIR 1961 Mad 347 I respectfully agree with the view taken by RamachandraIyer, J. in the latter case. In both these decisions it has been held that when there is no stipulation postponing the payment, the expression ‗payable on CS(OS)424/2017 Page 13 demand' in the document means that the money becomes due forthwith at once on the execution of the document. In such a case the use of the expression ―payable on demand‖ cannot be taken to be a condition; but where the payment cannot be enforced within a stipulated period and it is stated that the debt becomes payable after that period on demand, the use of expression ‗on demand' attaches a further condition and such a document is not a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act.‖
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next