Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing H.K. Makwana vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 8 April, 1994

Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be ... vs Satishkumar P Madalani on 22 March, 2001

8.1As regards merits of the matter, he stated that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.J.Shrimali Vs. District Development Officer, Mehsana and others reported in 1989 (2) GLH 12 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of H.K.Makwana Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 1994(2) GLH 213, when the employees are employed in relief work they are not covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and it is a soverign function of the Government and therefore there is no useful purpose will be served in remanding the matter to the Labour Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

President & Anr vs Indrasinh Bhavansinh Zala & Ors on 16 February, 2016

4.1 The bone contention of the petitioner that scarcity relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well founded. Further, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002 will also apply with full force in this fact situation. The petition therefore needs to be allowed on this bone contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

President & Anr vs Ratansinh Bhimsinh Parmar & Ors on 16 February, 2016

4.1 The bone contention of the petitioner that scarcity relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well founded. Further, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002 will also apply with full force in this fact situation. The petition therefore needs to be allowed on this bone contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

Kheda District Panchayat & Anr vs Pravingiri Chaturgiri Gosai & Ors on 16 February, 2016

4.1 The bone contention of the petitioner that scarcity relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well founded. Further, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002 will also apply with full force in this fact situation. The petition therefore needs to be allowed on this bone contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

President & Anr vs Budhabhai Mohanbhai Parmar & Ors on 16 February, 2016

4.1 The bone contention of the petitioner that scarcity relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well founded. Further, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002 will also apply with full force in this fact situation. The petition therefore needs to be allowed on this bone contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

Kheda District Panchayat & Anr vs Kodarbhai Dhulabhai Parmar & Ors on 16 February, 2016

4.1 The bone contention of the petitioner that scarcity relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well founded. Further, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002 will also apply with full force in this fact situation. The petition therefore needs to be allowed on this bone contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

Kheda District Panchayat & Anr vs Balvantbhai Hirabhai Parmar & Ors on 16 February, 2016

4.1 The bone contention of the petitioner that scarcity relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well founded. Further, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002 will also apply with full force in this fact situation. The petition therefore needs to be allowed on this bone contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

President & Anr vs Late Chandubhai Jethabhai Parmar & Ors on 16 February, 2016

5.1 The bone contention of the petitioner that scarcity relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well founded. Further, the decision of the Full Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 21 01:26:31 IST 2016 C/SCA/10097/2015 ORDER Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002 will also apply with full force in this fact situation. The petition therefore needs to be allowed on this bone contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

Kheda District Panchayat & Anr vs Rasikbhai Ranchhodbhai Solanki & Ors on 16 February, 2016

4.1 The bone contention of the petitioner that scarcity relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well founded. Further, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002 will also apply with full force in this fact situation. The petition therefore needs to be allowed on this bone contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board vs Pagi Malabhai Andarbhai on 17 December, 2003

He also relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the matter of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1994 (2) GLH page 213 and submitted that the decision of the division bench of this court reported in 1989(1) GLR 396 has been confirmed by the full bench of this court [1994 (2) GLH 213]. In short, it was his submission that the labour court was having no jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference; provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to the petitioner; division bench as well as the full bench of this court has held that the scarcity work is the sovereign function of the State and, therefore, provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable and the labour court was knowing fully well that the workmen were appointed for scarcity work and yet the labour court adjudicated the reference and passed the impugned award and in doing so, the labour court has erred and, therefore, the award in question is required to be quashed and set aside. Save and except these submissions, no other submissions were made by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan before this court. Save and except the documents referred to hereinabove, no other documents were referred to by Mr. Chauhan. Save and except the decisions referred to hereinabove, no other decisions were cited by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan before this Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document
1   2 3 Next