Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 324 (4.36 seconds)
Documents citing S. K. Verma vs Mahesh Chandra And Another on 2 September, 1983

The Manager, The Scientific Fertiliser ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 28 November, 2007

22. The Supreme Court decision in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and Anr. relied on by the learned single Judge is held to be incuriam and the decision reported in 1995 I LLJ 303 H.R. Adyanthaya etc., etc., v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., etc. etc.,) by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court holding that the work of the promotion of sales of the products or services of the establishments is distinct from and independent of the types of work covered by the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and therefore the definition of workman under the I.D. Act will not obviously cover the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, holds the field and that the law remains that a sales representative is not a workman under the I.D. Act and this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

The Manager, The Scientific Fertiliser ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 28 November, 2007

22. The Supreme Court decision in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and Anr. relied on by the learned single Judge is held to be incuriam and the decision reported in 1995 I LLJ 303 (H.R. Adyanthaya etc., etc., v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., etc. etc.,) by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court holding that the work of the promotion of sales of the products or services of the establishments is distinct from and independent of the types of work covered by the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and therefore the definition of workman under the I.D. Act will not obviously cover the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, holds the field and that the law remains that a sales representative is not a workman under the I.D. Act and this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - M Venugopal - Full Document

The Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 November, 2007

22. The Supreme Court decision in S.K.VERMA VS. MAHESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER (AIR 1984 S.C. 1462 (DB) relied on by the learned single Judge is held to be incuriam and the decision reported in 1995 I LLJ 303 ( H.R.ADYANTHAYA etc., etc., VS. SANDOZ (INDIA) LTD., etc. etc.,) by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court holding that the work of the promotion of sales of the products or services of the establishments is distinct from and independent of the types of work covered by the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and therefore the definition of workman under the I.D. Act will not obviously cover the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, holds the field and that the law remains that a sales representative is not a workman under the I.D. Act and this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

G.L. Pahwa vs The Chairman, The New India Assurance ... on 15 March, 2000

In the statement of claim filed by the petitioner before CGIT he had described himself as workman only on the ground that persons like the petitioner were declared "workman" as per judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shri S.K. Verma (supra). Thus the claim of the petitioner that he was a "workman" was essentially based on the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

The Management Of vs The Labour Court on 3 March, 2016

20.3. Rejecting such contentions, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Cooper Engineering's case (cited supra), in D.P.Maheshwari V. Delhi Administration and others, 1984-I-L.L.N. 1 = 1983 (4) SCC 293, and in S.K.Verma V. Mahesh Chandra and another, 1983-II-L.L.N. 637 = (1983) 4 SCC 214, the First Bench categorically held that the writ petition cannot be entertained at the preliminary stage.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document

A. Ram Mohan vs Labour Court, Bangalore And Anr. on 15 December, 1988

17. The employee pointed out that the word "operational" has been added to the definition of the word "workman" and this addition was made to cover all employees including the employees like sales promotion employees whose duties involved a combination of skill, clerical and manual. He said that the sales promotion work of pharmaceutical items required great skill and the work also involved considerable amount of clerical work and also manual work as he had to carry samples to the customer and, therefore, he was a "workman" in view of the ratio in S. K. Verma's case (supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Invesco India Private Limited vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Labour And ... on 14 June, 2024

In S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra4, the dispute was whether Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) were workmen. The dispute arose on account of the dismissal of the appellant Development Officer w.e.f. 8-2-1969. The Court noticed that the change in the definition of workman brought about by the Amending Act 36 of 1956 which, as stated above, added to the originally enacted definition, two more categories of employees, viz., those doing 'supervisory' and 'technical' work. The three-Judge Bench of this Court did not refer to the earlier decisions in May & Baker1, WIMCO2 and Burmah Shell3 cases.
Telangana High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next