Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 520 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996

Bhuvaneswari P. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 June, 1999

16. Only if the Industrial Tribunal finds that the contract is genuine, the contract labourer could approach the Government for issue of a notification under Section 10 of the Act. If the notification is issued abolishing the contract labour, a Division Bench of this Court, in Ramakrishnan K. and 19 Ors. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and 2 Ors. (supra) has held that the judgment of the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (supra) will come to rescue the contract labourer directly and the contract labourers are entitled to be absorbed by the principal employer straightaway, without having to raise any industrial dispute.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Their Workmen Represented By Joint Area ... on 18 January, 2024

16. Now, coming to the facts of the case way back in 19.10.2001, this Court passed an order staying the operation of the impugned award. Hence, till date the same has not been given effect to. Further, in view of the pendency of these writ petitions, it cannot be said that the impugned award has become final. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the award directing absorption of the contract labourers having been made following the judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation & Others vs. United Labour Union & Others (supra), in view of the judgment of constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited & Others v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Others (supra), the impugned award dated 14.03.2001 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No.54 of 1994 in respect of which W.P. (L) No.5444 of 2001 has been filed and Reference No.117 of 1994 in respect of which W.P. (L) No.5461 of 2001 has been filed, being not sustainable in law, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Their Workmen Represented By Joint Area ... on 18 January, 2024

16. Now, coming to the facts of the case way back in 19.10.2001, this Court passed an order staying the operation of the impugned award. Hence, till date the same has not been given effect to. Further, in view of the pendency of these writ petitions, it cannot be said that the impugned award has become final. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the award directing absorption of the contract labourers having been made following the judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation & Others vs. United Labour Union & Others (supra), in view of the judgment of constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited & Others v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Others (supra), the impugned award dated 14.03.2001 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No.54 of 1994 in respect of which W.P. (L) No.5444 of 2001 has been filed and Reference No.117 of 1994 in respect of which W.P. (L) No.5461 of 2001 has been filed, being not sustainable in law, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, ... vs Central Organisation Of Tamil Nadu ... on 24 March, 2005

34. The facts in the Writ Petition No. 38046 of 2002, subject matter of this writ appeal and the Writ Petition No. 25618 of 2004, cannot be decided without evidence being adduced and can be resolved only by way of industrial dispute. It is not made clear and no list with particulars was also enclosed along with the Memorandum of Settlement dated 8.7.1998 and in the Writ Petition No. 38046 of 2002 as to who are all the contract labourers entitled for the benefit reached as per Clause 15 of the said settlement. As per G.O.Ms. No. 950, the engagement of contract labour in the 19 processes of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as referred to above has been abolished. According to the Electricity Board, the Board is not directly engaging the contract labourers and the works are carried out by the contract labourers as allocated by the contractors through whom the work is executed on contract basis by open tender system by entering into agreement. That fact has to be gone into being question of fact for which evidence is necessarily to be recorded and which can be resolved only by way of industrial dispute.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mazgaon Dock Ltd., Mumbai vs Shivbrat Jagroop Mishra And Anr. on 30 April, 2001

3. The petitioner Company filed an application before the Industrial Court praying for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act to entertain and try such complaint in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Unions and Ors. reported in 1997(1) LLJ 1113 (SC). The petitioner company being a public sector undertaking is controlled by the Government of India and therefore the appropriate government for the said company is the Central Government and not the State Government. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Central Government being the appropriate government for the industrial disputes between its workmen and the company the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act does not apply to the petitioner company and therefore the present complaint filed by the respondent workman was not maintainable as the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said complaint.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - R J Kochar - Full Document

Sunder vs M/O Railways on 23 May, 2023

2. Briefly, taking us through the background and history of the case learned counsel for the applicants argues that most of the applicants have been working on a continuous basis since the year 2011. However, under the garb of their engagement through a middleman, the Northern Railways have denied them their legitimate due of regularization in accordance with the relevant policy. He claims that policy of engaging sweeping and cleaning staff on contract basis is impermissible under the law and could not have been resorted to by the Indian Railways. Learned counsel supports his arguments by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union and Ors. dated 06.11.1996. He particularly draws attention to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhir Singh vs The Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 4 July, 2024

53. It is significant to note in this regard that the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Unions and Ors. etc JT 1996(11) SC 170, relied upon in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board's case (Supra) have been specifically overruled by a larger bench of Hon'ble of Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001)7 SCC 1.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganesh Chand vs Ms Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 11 March, 2024

51. It is significant to note in this regard that the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Unions and Ors. etc JT 1996(11) SC 170, relied upon in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board's case (Supra) have been specifically overruled by a larger bench of Hon'ble of Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001)7 SCC 1.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs The Learned 9Th Industrial Tribunal, ... on 2 December, 1999

19. Assuming such order Is to be taken Into account on the basis of the Judgment (Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union) (supra) delivered In the month of December 1996 wherein the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal on 20th August. 1982 much prior thereto. Therefore, the ratio of the Judgment of 1993 Suppl.
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Lala - Full Document

Kapil Kumar Sharma vs The Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 6 July, 2024

53. It is significant to note in this regard that the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Unions and Ors. etc JT 1996(11) SC 170, relied upon in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board's case (Supra) have been specifically overruled by a larger bench of Hon'ble of Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001)7 SCC 1.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next