Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 636 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg..Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, ... on 31 March, 2003

Employer In Relation To The Management ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 July, 2003

25. For the foregoing reasons, therefore,, this Court is of the opinion that the award does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Moreover, the argument of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha to the effect that the learned Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of reference by awarding regularization and 40% of back wages is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as the principle reference was to adjudicate as to whether the termination was justified or not. The further reference was that if it was not justified, then to what relief the workmen would be entitled. The Tribunal came to a conclusion that the termination was illegal and therefore, the only corollary relief to which the workmen were entitled, was reinstatement, but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom. District Manager, Kar-nataka, reported in JT 2003 (3) SC 436, which will be referred to hereinafter, this part of the award needs to be modified. However, the fact remains that the concerned workmen had put in continuous work for such a long period and therefore, they should be dealt with in accordance with law.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - T Sen - Full Document

P.K. Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 30 November, 2007

28. The Appointment Order dated 26.3.2001 as well as the clarification made by the respondent vide Office Order dated 14.05.2007 amply establish the ad hoc nature of the petitioner's services thus bringing the termination thereof within the fold of Sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is noteworthy that the petitioner, too, has not controverter that his services were ad hoc in nature and were liable to be terminated on the completion of the project. Reliance by the petitioner on L. Robert D'souza v. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr. (supra), Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala,(supra) M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa and Ors. (supra), and The State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money, (supra), thus, appears to be misplaced inasmuch as the said decisions were pronounced prior to Section 2(oo)(bb) entering the Statute Book. It is trite law that a decision ceases to binding if an inconsistent statute or statutory rule is enacted subsequent to its pronouncement.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Nathu Singh vs The Judge Labour Court & Ors on 9 February, 2010

It would be evident from the above discussion that to exclude the termination of services of scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment, it is for the employer to prove above said ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) aforesaid. Burden of proof thus lies on the employer if he wanted to exclude the termination from the purview of retrenchment. In the present case, an attempt has been made by the respondent to describe the appointment of petitioners as contractual in nature. In my considered view, the Labour Court, however, was wholly unjustified in accepting such plea of the respondent that since the petitioners were on daily wages and, therefore, they should be taken to have been engaged in a scheme or project. As observed by the Supreme Court in S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager (supra), an engagement of workman on daily wages does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or project. Moreover, reading of both the Awards passed in these cases makes it apparent that the learned Labour Court was belabouring under the impression as if the petitioners were claiming regularization of service, whereas what was referred to it as industrial dispute was the question whether termination of services of the petitioners by the respondnet was valid or not and if not what relief they are entitled to. The learned Labour Court has indeed not rendered any finding on the question of violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the ID Act and has left those issues undecided.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Naveen Kumar S/O Sh. Shiv Charan vs M/S Examine Body, Through Its Chairman, ... on 21 February, 2026

In the case at hand, since workman has not disputed that he was in contractual employment of management no.1 and further admitted that he had knowledge since beginning that his employment was dependent and co- extensive with agreement/ contract dated 22.11.2019 between management no.1 and management no. 2 and that said contract would expire on 31.12.2021 therefore, in view of observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S M Nilajkar vs Telecom District Manager (Supra), termination of services of the workman simultaneously with expiry of said contract on 31.12.2021, is well covered within statutorily recognized exception to 'retrenchment' provided in u/s 2 (oo) (bb) of ID Act and therefore, it does not attract rigors of Section 25-F of ID Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deepak Rajpuriya vs State on 9 February, 2010

It would be evident from the above discussion that to exclude the termination of services of scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment, it is for the employer to prove above said ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) aforesaid. Burden of proof thus lies on the employer if he wanted to exclude the termination from the purview of retrenchment. In the present case, an attempt has been made by the respondent to describe the appointment of petitioners as contractual in nature. In my considered view, the Labour Court, however, was wholly unjustified in accepting such plea of the respondent that since the petitioners were on daily wages and, therefore, they should be taken to have been engaged in a scheme or project. As observed by the Supreme Court in S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager (supra), an engagement of workman on daily wages does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or project. Moreover, reading of both the Awards passed in these cases makes it apparent that the learned Labour Court was belabouring under the impression as if the petitioners were claiming regularization of service, whereas what was referred to it as industrial dispute was the question whether termination of services of the petitioners by the respondnet was valid or not and if not what relief they are entitled to. The learned Labour Court has indeed not rendered any finding on the question of violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the ID Act and has left those issues undecided.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next