Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Martin Burn Limited vs T.C. Moorjani And Ors. on 9 August, 1973

Htl Ltd. vs Deputy Chief Inspector Of Factories, ... on 30 August, 1997

(i) M/s. Martin Burn Ltd. v. T.G. Moorjani and Ors. 1974 Lab. I.C. 968. The reading of the said two decisions show that, it is open to the authority to conduct a preliminary enquiry with regard to the employer and employee relationship. Here also, since I have already accepted the case of the respondents 2 and 3 and found that the authority is competent to render a finding there is no need to elaborate further.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Yad Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs. vs Bir Singh And Anr. on 11 December, 1973

in M/s. Martin Burn Limited v. T. G. Moorjani and others I.L.R. (1973) Ii Delhi 785(12). This was a case where an application was made for the payment of gratuity under section 7(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The employer denied the relationship of employer and employee and the Controlling Authority decided the question against the employer. The employer filed a writ petition in this Court to quash the proceedings before the Controlling Authority on the ground, inter alia, that the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority under section 7(4)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was confined to the determination of only the amount of gratuity payable to an employee. This contention is the same as the contention of the respondents that the jurisdiction of the specified Labour Court under section 33C(2) is confined to the computation of the money or benefit due and extends no further. After noticing the above quoted observations of Lord Esher, M. R. and other cases, the Division Bench observed :- "THEjurisdiction of the Controlling Authority to determine the amount of gratuity depends on the pre-existence of the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. These jurisdictional conditions cannot be finally determined by the Controlling Authority. But this only means that the conclusion which the Controlling Authority may arrive at on this issue is impeachable by the aggrieved party in a civil court. This does not mean, however, that the Controlling Authority cannot at all inquire into this issue or that the petitioner can disable the Controlling Authority from making any inquiry by merely denying that the respondents 2 and 3 are its employees. On the contrary, the Legislature has intended that initially the Controlling Authority may find out whether the relationship of employer and employee exists. If he finds that it does not exist, then he would drop the proceedings. If he finds that it exists, he would continue the proceedings to determine the amount of gratuity. This is subject to the right of the aggrieved party to go to the civil court for a final determination of this issue which goes to the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority......A mere denial by the employer as to the coverage of his factory under the Act does not, however, mean that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner is disabled from holding the inquiry. On the contrary, he must hold an inquiry though his finding regarding the coverage of the factory may be challengable in a civil court."
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

H.T.L. Ltd., Madras vs Deputy Chief Inspector Of Factories, ... on 30 August, 1997

M/s. Martin Burn Ltd, v. T. G. Moorjani and others (supra). The reading of the said decision shows that, it is open to the authority to conduct a preliminary enquiry with regard to the employer and employee relationship. Here also, since I have already accepted the case of the Respondents 2 and 3 and found that the authority is competent to render a finding there is no need to elaborate further.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

The Superintending Engineer vs The Labour Inspector on 9 December, 2003

39. The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General by placing reliance upon paragraph 122(5) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 'STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ..VS.. NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT WORKERS AND OTHERS' (A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 3527) is concerned, it will have to be held that the said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are only in the context of the facts involved in that case. The appellants in those cases were faced with the situation where admittedly persons came to be employed as contract labourers in connection with the work of the establishment and by virtue of the said status as contract labourer by carrying out certain works in connection with the work of the establishment when a claim came to be made for absorption as the workmen of the principal employer, the Honourable Supreme Court held in paragraph 122 (5) of the judgment that such a controversy would form part of an issue to be agitated upon as an industrial dispute before the appropriate adjudicatory forum created under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as the same would involve a debate as to whether the contractor had been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labourer for the work of the establishment under a genuine contract or as a mere ruse / camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefits thereunder. In the said context, the Honourable Supreme Court held that if the contract was found to be not genuine, then the so called contract labourer will have to be treated as employees of the employer, and could be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose. In paragraph 123, the Honourable Supreme Court made it clear that such an adjudication would be necessary as determination of the various questions would require an enquiry into the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conveniently made by the High Courts in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 16 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Indian Institute Of Technology , Bombay ... vs Tanaji Babaji Lad And Ors on 4 October, 2024

22) Mr. Misra has relied upon Cummins (I) Ltd. (supra) in support of his contention that liability to pay gratuity would be on the contractor as held by this Court in Cummins (I) Ltd. In my view, however, the fact situation in the case before this Court in Cummins (I) Ltd. was entirely different where there was a specific agreement. The concerned workers had essentially filed the application for payment of gratuity against the contractor and the company was brought into picture by impleading it at the behest of application made by the contractor. Otherwise, the workers had never raised any claim for payment of gratuity by the company and the claim was made essentially against the contractor. The contractor however, sought to enforce the alleged agreement between it and the company and sought to shift the liability to pay gratuity on the company. This Court did not approve impleadment of the company to application filed against contractor for payment of gratuity. This Court thereafter went into the broader issue by ignoring the impropriety in impleadment of the company to the application before the Controlling Authority and held in paragraph 9 as under:-
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Institute Of Technology By Its ... vs Dadarao Tanaji Ingle And Ors on 4 October, 2024

22) Mr. Misra has relied upon Cummins (I) Ltd. (supra) in support of his contention that liability to pay gratuity would be on the contractor as held by this Court in Cummins (I) Ltd. In my view, however, the fact situation in the case before this Court in Cummins (I) Ltd. was entirely different where there was a specific agreement. The concerned workers had essentially filed the application for payment of gratuity against the contractor and the company was brought into picture by impleading it at the behest of application made by the contractor. Otherwise, the workers had never raised any claim for payment of gratuity by the company and the claim was made essentially against the contractor. The contractor however, sought to enforce the alleged agreement between it and the company and sought to shift the liability to pay gratuity on the company. This Court did not approve impleadment of the company to application filed against contractor for payment of gratuity. This Court thereafter went into the broader issue by ignoring the impropriety in impleadment of the company to the application before the Controlling Authority and held in paragraph 9 as under:-
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yad Ram (By Legal Representatives) vs Labour Court And Anr. on 11 December, 1973

in Martin Burn Limited v. T.G. Moorjani (1973) 44 F.J.R. 406. This was a case where an application was made for the payment of gratuity under Section 7(i) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The employer denied the relationship of employer and employee and the Controlling Authority decided the question against the employer. The employer filed a writ petition in this Court to quash the proceedings before the Controlling Authority on the ground, inter alia, that the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority under Section 7(4)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was confined to the determination of only the amount of gratuity payable to an employee. This contention is the same as the contention of the respondents that the jurisdiction of the specified Labour Court under Section 33C(2) is confined to the computation of the money or benefit due and extends no further. After noticing the above quoted observations of Lord Esher, M. R., and other cases, the Division Bench observed (at pages 407-408) ...The jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority to determine the amount of gratuity depends on the pre-existence of the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents ? and 3. These jurisdictional conditions cannot be finally determined by the Controlling Authority. But, this only means that the conclusion which the Controlling Authority may arrive at on this issue is impeachable by the aggrieved party in a civil Court.... This docs not mean, however, that the Controlling Authority cannot at all inquire into this issue or that the petitioner can disable the Controlling Authority from making any inquiry by merely denying that the respondents 2 and 3 are its employees. On the contrary, the Legislature has intended that initially the Controlling Authority may find out whether the relation-ship of employer and employee exists. If he finds that it does not exist, then he would drop the proceedings. If he finds that it exists, he would continue the proceedings to determine the amount of gratuity. This is subject to the right of the aggrieved party to go to the civil Court for a final determination of this issue which goes to the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority.... A mere denial by the employer as to the coverage of his factory under the Act does not, however, mean that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner is disabled from holding the inquiry. On the contrary, he must hold an inquiry though his finding regarding the coverage of the factory may be challengeable in a civil Court:...
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Indian Institute Of Technology , Bombay ... vs Raman Sukar Garase And Ors on 4 October, 2024

22) Mr. Misra has relied upon Cummins (I) Ltd. (supra) in support of his contention that liability to pay gratuity would be on the contractor as held by this Court in Cummins (I) Ltd. In my view, however, the fact situation in the case before this Court in Cummins (I) Ltd. was entirely different where there was a specific agreement. The concerned workers had essentially filed the application for payment of gratuity against the contractor and the company was brought into picture by impleading it at the behest of application made by the contractor. Otherwise, the workers had never raised any claim for payment of gratuity by the company and the claim was made essentially against the contractor. The contractor however, sought to enforce the alleged agreement between it and the company and sought to shift the liability to pay gratuity on the company. This Court did not approve impleadment of the company to application filed against contractor for payment of gratuity. This Court thereafter went into the broader issue by ignoring the impropriety in impleadment of the company to the application before the Controlling Authority and held in paragraph 9 as under:-
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1