Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 105 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Anand Regional Co. Op Oil S. Union Ltd vs Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah on 8 August, 2006

Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs Smt. Sunita B. Vatsaraj on 18 June, 2007

In Anand Regional Co-op. Oil Seedsgrowers Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah (Supra) after referring to its earlier decisions including in cases of Anand Bazaar Patrika (Supra) and Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd,(Supra) the Apex Court held that while determining whether a person is a workman or not, not only the nature of the work performed by him but also the terms of appointment in the job performed are relevant (see para 14 of the decision) while determining nature of the work performed by an employee, the essence of the matter should call for consideration without giving undue importance to the designation of an employee. What is needed to be asked is what are the primary duties he performs. To hold that the employee is performing the supervisory duties, it is necessary to prove that there are some persons working under him whose work is required to be supervised.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - D G Karnik - Full Document

Amresh Kumar vs Shri Hari Overseas (P) Ltd. on 1 May, 2019

24. Through the written submissions of the petitioner, reliance was placed on a catena of verdicts in "Anand Regional Co.Op Oil S. Union Vs. Shailesh Kumar Harshadbhai Shah" [2006] (6) SCC 548, "Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. V. Workmen"[(1970) 3 SCC 248], "National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs Shri Kishan Bhageria & Ors." AIR 1988 SC 329, to contend that where there is a power of assigning duties and distribution of W.P.(C) 8291/2014 Page 11 of 22 work, there is supervision but that where the employee was working as an Internal Auditor in a Company, he was not doing supervisory work but also checking up on behalf of the employer and having no independent right or authority take decisions, thus the employee was held to be a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Nayana Kothari vs M. Fabrikant And Sons Inc on 16 January, 2023

Insofar as Mr.Bhat's contention relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'Anand Regional Co-op. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah' (2006) 6 SCC 548 is concerned, true it is that the supervision would contemplate direction and control as held by the Supreme Court and further while determining the nature of the work performed by an employee, and that the designation of an employee, or the name assigned to the category/class to which he belongs, ought not to be of any importance in deciding the nature of the work and what is required to be examined is as to what are the primary duties being performed by the employee in question, and for such purpose, it needs to be proved that the person was working in supervisory capacity and there were some persons working under the employee whose work is to supervise. In my opinion, the decision reiterates the well settled principles of law, however considering the facts and the evidence as brought on record by the parties, coupled with the nature of pay-scale enjoyed by the petitioner and other companion three workers, it does not satisfy such test as laid down by the Supreme
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Smt. Valsala Vasudevan vs M/S Saini Co­Operative T & C Society ... on 11 September, 2017

In Municipal   Corporation   of   Delhi   Vs.   Daulat   Ram   &   Another (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that interference in the quantum of punishment is not called for on the ground of misplaced or uncalled for sympathy.  It was held in Anand Regional C­op. Oil Seedsgrowers Union Ltd. Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah (Supra)  that it was a settled law that industrial courts should not interfere   with   the   quantum   of   punishment   unless   there   existed sufficient   reasons   therefore.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Triloki Nath Chaudhary vs Shri Hari Overseas (P) Ltd. on 1 May, 2019

21. Through the written submissions of the petitioner, reliance was placed on a catena of verdicts in "Anand Regional Co.Op Oil S. Union Vs. Shailesh Kumar Harshadbhai Shah" [2006] (6) SCC 548, "Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. V. Workmen"[(1970) 3 SCC 248], "National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs Shri Kishan Bhageria & Ors." AIR 1988 SC 329, to contend that where there is a power of assigning duties and distribution of work, there is supervision but that where the employee was working as an Internal Auditor in a Company, he was not doing supervisory work but also checking up on behalf of the employer having no independent right or authority take decisions, thus the employee was held to be a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - A Malhotra - Full Document

V.Chennakesavalu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 22 December, 2009

 18. The appellant has, thus, been found guilty of tampering with records and committing forgery. He misappropriated food allowance. Shri Kaushal Kumar Singh was found guilty only for claiming food allowance illegally. The superior courts of India exercising power of judicial review, it is trite, would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment. Even the Industrial Court would not do so as has been noticed by this Court in Anand Regional Co.operative Oil Seed Growers Union Ltd., vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah (2006 (6) SCC 548). In the said case, however, having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein, it was held: (SCC p.557, para 27) 27. There is, however, another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Identical allegations were made against seven persons. The management did not take serious note of misconduct committed by six others although they were similarly situated. They were allowed to take the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme. The said decision does not assist the appellant at all.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Kamal Goyal vs Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. on 7 August, 2008

In our opinion, the decision in Anand Regional Co-op. Oil Seedsgrowers Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah (supra) has no application to the case in hand. In that case the Labour Court found that though the workman was designated as Assistant Executive, he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The finding of fact was confirmed by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench and ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A P Shah - Full Document

Management Of S & S Power vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2008

17.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that from the documents produced on the side of the Management including the initial order of appointment it can be safely held that the second respondent is not a workman. At this juncture, this Court has to keep in mind the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Anand Regional Co-operative Oil Seedsgrowers Union Ltd., v. Shaileshkumar Harshdbhai Shah (cited supra) wherein, the Honble Supreme Court has held that for determining the question as to whether a person employed in an industry is a workman or not, not only the nature of work performed by him but also the terms of the appointment in the job performed are relevant considerations.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Nagamuthu - Full Document

The vs The on 17 April, 2008

In Anand Regional Co­operative Oil Seedsgrowers Union Ltd. Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah 2006 III LLJ 767, Apex Court has observed that supervision contemplates direction and control. An undue importance need not be given for the designation of employee or the name assigned, the class to which he belongs as needed to be asked as to what are the primary duties he performs. For the said purpose it is necessary to prove that there were some workers working under him whose work is required to be supervised. In view of the observations of the Apex Court in my opinion designation of supervisor pre­ suposes that the person has some subordinates whose work he is required to supervise as part of his duties. Admittedly in this case claimant has no subordinates or work force working under him. It is an admitted case of the management that he used to work all alone in Delhi. Thereby job profile of the claimant cannot said to be covered under Sub Clause 4 of Section 2 (s) of I.D. Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next