Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing The Executive Engineer(State Of ... vs K. Somasetty & Ors on 2 May, 1997

State Of Gujarat vs Maniben Viraji on 9 April, 2003

However, according to my opinion, that question has been examined by the Three Judges Bench in case of General Manager, Telecom Department versus K. Srinivasan wherein the earlier decision on this point has been impliedly overruled by the Three Judges Bench of the apex court and, therefore, I am of the view that the reliance placed by Mr. Oza, on the decisions in case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. K. Somasetty reported in 1997 AIR SCW 2627 as well as decision in case of Union of India versus Jai Narayan Singh reported in 1995 Supp.
Gujarat High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 7 - H K Rathod - Full Document

State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) And Ors. vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 1 September, 2005

8. Mrs. Senchaudhury submitted that since the workmen had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, the question of their regularization did not arise. It was at this stage that Mrs. Senchaudhury took the point of jurisdiction, which appears not to have been urged either before the Labour Court, or the learned Single Judge. It was submitted that the employees in the Irrigation Department of the Government were not 'workmen' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that such view had been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. K. Somasetty and Ors., .
Jharkhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Kabir - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Ratan Budha Alam on 1 April, 2009

Thus, even after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) ..vs.. K. Somasetty & Ors.; (supra), the Division Bench of this Court also came to the conclusion that the Irrigation Department in the State of Maharashtra is an Industry. It may also be noted that same view was taken by Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Tungabhadra Board..vs..Easu and another; 1999 II LLJ 1014.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - J H Bhatia - Full Document

State Of Uttarakhand And Another ... vs Satya Singh Bhandari on 10 December, 2025

10. The learned State Counsel further reiterates that the Irrigation Department does not fall within the definition of "industry". The work performed by the department relates to core sovereign and statutory duties, and not commercial activities. The respondent's reliance on certain judgments is completely misplaced, and the correct legal position is enunciated in authoritative Supreme Court decisions, including Executive Engineer vs. Somaseetty (Supra), which hold that daily wage workers engaged in State infrastructure projects do not acquire the status of industrial workmen so as to claim reinstatement. Since the respondent has led no evidence to establish otherwise, the Labour Court acted without jurisdiction, and the award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P Purohit - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Dnyaneshwar Rakmaji Aher & Another on 20 January, 1998

In a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Executive Engineer, State of Karnataka v. K. Somashetty & others (supra), relied upon by the learned A.G.P, it has been held that the Irrigation Department of Karnataka State is not an industry, as defined under the Act. The petitioners, therefore, contended that on this preliminary issue viz. that the petitioner is not an Industry, as defined under the Act, a reference made on the demand of respondent, was not maintainable before the Labour Court. It is clear from the record that this point was never raised before the Labour Court and it has now been raised for the first time, during the course of arguments and mostly, on the basis of the two judgments of the Supreme Court cited hereinabove.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - B H Marlapalle - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Atiullah And Another on 29 January, 2020

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, however, submitted that judgement reported in 1997 (5) SCC 434 (The Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. K. Somasetty & Ors.) had been referred to a larger Bench and, therefore, the proposition that the Irrigation Department was not a State was still being adjudicated upon and further he submitted that this ground was never raised before the Labour Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Varma - Full Document

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs Labour Court, Gorakhpur And Another on 26 May, 1999

18. The other two decisions in Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. K. Somasetty and others (supra) and State of U. P. and others v. U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh and another (supra) also, the petitioners employed were daily wagers. In the first case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellant who was discharged from the work on the closure of the project was appointed on daily wages.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next