Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 165 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Mukesh K. Tripathi vs Sr. Divn. Manager, L.I.C. & Ors on 6 September, 2004

M/S. Le Meridien vs M/S. Thomas Cook India Ltd. 2000(6) on 2 May, 2008

Vs. The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukand Ltd. Vs. Mukand Staff and Officers' Association (supra) and in Mukesh K. Tripathi Vs. Sr. Divisional Manager, L.I.C. And others (supra), initial burden is on the claimant to plead and prove that he is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Ficom Organics Ltd vs Patel Pramod Indravadan on 13 April, 2017

The Apex Court did not entertain the appeal. It is quite clear from this judgment that at the end of the apprenticeship / apprentice training, the apprentice must satisfy the statutory requirement and establish that he had been working as a workman thereafter. In that case the Apex Court was considering the case of an apprentice and also the question as to who can be called a workman. It held that Section 18 read with Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, carves out an exception to the applicability of labour laws in the event the person concerned is an apprentice, as contra distinguished from the expression worker, employee and workman used in different statutes. It further held that though the definition of workman in the ID Act includes an apprentice a workman thereunder must conform to the requirements laid down in the ID Act inter alia that he must be working in one or the other capacities mentioned in Section 2(s) of the ID Act and not otherwise to acquire the status of a workman. The Court also held that where a person is allowed to continue without extending the Page 16 of 33 HC-NIC Page 16 of 33 Created On Tue Aug 15 23:36:11 IST 2017 C/SCA/2434/2006 JUDGMENT period of apprenticeship either expressly or by necessary implication and regular work is taken from him then he may become a workman. Accordingly, it concluded held that the duties and obligations of a Development Officer of LIC by no stretch of imagination can be held to be performed by an apprentice. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Industrial Dispute Between :­ vs M/S. Shri Tilak Industries on 23 February, 2012

We, however, are not unmindful of a decision of a three­Judge Bench of the Court in Mukesh K. Tripathi V. LIC, 2004 (103) FLR 350; 2004 LLR 993 (SC), wherein the question was as to whether an apprentice would be a workman within the meaning of the provisions of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is not a case where case of an apprentice is involved."
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next