Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.74 seconds)
Documents citing Vegoils Private Lemited vs The Workmen on 10 September, 1971

Surendra Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 May, 2001

12. Having carefully perused other decisions in Vegoils (P) Ltd. v. The Workmen (supra) and Secretary, HSEB v. Suresh (supra) so also the decision considered and discussed above, and without disputing the dictum of law laid down in those cases (supra), I am of the view that the ratio of these cited decisions are not attracted to the instant case since the petitioners have not been able to place on record any notification issued by the State Government under Section 10 of the Act, from which it may be inferred that the respondent Council is an establishment having been notified under the Act, therefore, it cannot legally be assumed that they were regular employees of the respondent Council or that the work performed by them was under direct control of the respondent Council. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim any right of regularisation of their work under the contractors of the respondent Council and hence no such relief can be given to them at par with regular employees of the respondent Council.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat Working Class Union vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 15 April, 1994

29. It may be noted that before the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted dispute as to whether contract labour system should be abolished or not were being referred to the Industrial Courts under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is obvious that the object of consultation with the Advisory Board is not merely to collect information and seek advice. If the information is to be collected, the Government could have collected information through its own department and other agencies. Constitution of the Board as provided under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and the relevant rules shows that it should represent different interests; that it is required to collect information from different interests and it is also required to consider the views that may have been expressed by different interests. It is after collecting such information and after hearing various interests and after taking other necessary steps the Advisory Board prepares its reports. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vegoils (supra) such consultation is mandatory. It may be noted that after enactment of the Act, the adjudicatory process by which the workmen could demand abolition of contract labour by raising industrial dispute has been dispensed with. In this context the expression "after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board" occurring in Section 10(1) of the Act is required to be understood and given its true content and meaning.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - N N Mathur - Full Document

Cochin Shipyard Limited vs Industrial Tribunal on 27 October, 1989

10. Coming to the merits of the case. Although 27 issues were referred for adjudication, the unions did not press 15 issues. The Tribunal therefore was called upon to consider and dispose of only 12 issues. Of these 12 issues 9 were answered in favour of the employees. Of the 9 issues the issue pertaining to 'abolition of contract in shipwright section' the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, cannot be the subject matter of a reference as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, in view of the special enactment governing the matter namely The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. That is the position in law has been declared by the Supreme Court. See the decision in Vegoils Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen 1971 (2) L.L.J. 567. Construing this enactment the Supreme Court has observed that, "it may be that in future if a reference is proposed to be made or actually made by the authorities concerned regarding the abolition of contract labour for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, it may be open to the persons concerned to resist the reference on the ground that the jurisdiction to consider such matters and prohibiting contract labour is now vested with the appropriate Government under the Central Act". It is so, because with effect from 10.2.1971 the jurisdiction to decide matters connected with contract labour is vested in the appropriate Government (See Section 10 of the said Act). The Industrial Tribunal, therefore, has no jurisdiction to decide this issue. Though the Tribunal Considered the issue it has not issued any direction to absorb these apprentices. Yet there is the observation that 'there is no justification in not absorbing the said workmen". This observation is unwarranted in view of the position in law that the labour laws are not applicable to the said apprentices in view of Sections 18 and 22 of the Apprentices Act. This is the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ashok Biri Factory And Ors. vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 11 June, 2002

41. Mr. Ghosh, learned senior counsel of the petitioners referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vegotis Pvt. Ltd. v. The Workmen and subsequent decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Management, Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd., Madras v. The Industrial Tribunal Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (1975) Lab IC 165 and submitted that when a specific Act has been provided to regulate matters relating to Beedi and Cigar industries and particularly the problems relating to the workers and contractors in Beedi and Cigar Establishments then provisions of the said Act should be applied in order to resolve the disputes raised by the workers and/or contractors in respect of the said Beedi and Cigar Establishments.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - P K Chattopadhyay - Full Document

Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd., ... vs Government Of A.P. And Another on 27 September, 1999

In the decision reported in Vegoils (P) Ltd v. The Workmen, , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that if the contract labour of loading and unloading is of perennial nature, the appropriate Government may abolish it under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Abolition Act. The Supreme Court in the said judgment further pointed out that it is for the appropriate Government to take decision, but not for the Court or authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. A copy of the report of the Advisory Board placed before this Court, has helped this Court in lifting the veil as to see the nature of the contract labour regarding the canteen workers in statutory canteens.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - B S Raikote - Full Document

The Management Of Statesman Ltd., New ... vs Lt. Governor, Delhi And Ors. on 31 May, 1974

Similarly in Vegoils Private Ltd. (Supra), reference is made to the contract labour. I am unable to find any assistance from the said authorities. In the present statute under consideration. Section 3 of the Act expressly applies the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Working Journalists. The Journalist Act even taking as a complete code for the sake of argument, would include within its ambit Section 3 and the provisions of the Industrial Disptes Act extended to it by a fiction created by provisions of law. There is nothing in the Journalists Act which expressly or by necessary intendment excludes the application of the Iudustrial Disputes Act, to matters which are expressly not covered by the Journalists Act. The, contention of the learned counsel therefore, falls.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mumbai Shramik Sangh vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... on 30 January, 1997

"We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Pai that the direction given by the Industrial Tribunal abolishing the contract labour regarding the work of feeding the hoppers and other allied activities incidental and connected therewith is in any manner erroneous. The direction given in this regard, in our opinion, is fully justified. Even according to the evidence of the appellant's witnesses, referred to above, it is clear that the feeding of hoppers in the solvent extraction plant is an activity closely and intimately connected with the main activity of the appellant namely, crushing oil cakes and oil seeds for extraction of oil and other chemical production. Excepting a few days, as already referred to above this work has to go on continuously almost throughout the year. From this it follows that this item of work is incidental to the nature of the industry carried on by the appellant, which must be done almost every day and there should be no difficulty in having regular workman in the employment of the appellant to do this type of work. It is not as if that the work is of an intermittent or temporary nature or so little that it would not be possible for the appellant to employ full time workmen for this purpose. Further, it cannot also be said that by employing contract labour for this purpose, the appellant could be enabled to keep down the costs on the ground that there would not be sufficient work for ail the workmen if permanent labour was employed".
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - D K Trivedi - Full Document

Fci Loading And Unloading Workers Union vs Food Corporation Of India on 25 April, 1986

13. Mr. Narayana Rao invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vegiols Private Limited v. The Workmen, and to the observations of the Supreme Court in Paragraphs 42 and 43 of its Judgment. In that case, the Supreme Court was concerned with the grievance of the Union representing Contract Labour that the conditions of employment of persons working under the contractor were entirely different from those of the workmen under the Principal employer and in order to improve the conditions of service of contract labour; it should be abolished. That was a case where an award was made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay directing the abolition of the contract labour in the appellant Company before it. In the appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court dealt with the various provisions of the Act and observed in paras-42 and 43 of the Judgment the salient features of the Act and the obligations of the employer and the contractor for, the betterment of the conditions of service of contract labour. In that case, the legal effect of the termination of services of the workmen employed by the contractor and liability of the principal employer in case of such termination did not arise for consideration. Therefore, that decision is of no assistance for deciding the issues that arise for consideration in this case. Mr. Narayana Rao also strongly relied on the first decision of the Supreme Court where the Corporation was a party and the observation made by Justice Desai in para-11 of the Judgment. I will Consider the same at the appropriate stage after considering the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Karnataka High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next