Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)

Kartheban Subramaniyan vs Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) on 6 December, 2021

8. The definition for the term “employer” as found in Payment of Gratuity Act will also apply to the definition for “employer” in Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The High Court of Kerala in Lord Krishna bank Ltd., Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer reported in CDJ 1998 Ker HC 181 has held that as the Registers are to be maintained at the Head Office of the Bank, insistence on the part of the first respondent therein to maintain the Registers in all the branches is not sustainable. Relevant paragraph is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Kartheban Subramaniyan vs Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) on 6 December, 2021

8. The definition for the term “employer” as found in Payment of Gratuity Act will also apply to the definition for “employer” in Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The High Court of Kerala in Lord Krishna bank Ltd., Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer reported in CDJ 1998 Ker HC 181 has held that as the Registers are to be maintained at the Head Office of the Bank, insistence on the part of the first respondent therein to maintain the Registers in all the branches is not sustainable. Relevant paragraph is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Ganta Srinivasa Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 July, 2022

"23. The position in law will have to be referred to at this juncture. This Court, in the case of M/s.Vijaya Bank Vs. State by the Labour Enforcement Officer, reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka 4773, has held that, taking cognizance of an offence being a judicial act after application of mind, the Magistrate should not use "printed proforma" in which event the words "Cognizance is taken" are also printed or typed."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document
1