Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. And Ors. Etc. ... vs Mr. Avinash D. Kamble And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 3 March, 2008

Midc Prakalpgrasth Majur Sahkari ... vs The District Deputy Registrar And ... on 1 August, 2022

In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Nagpur Vs. Mr. Avinash D. Kamble (supra), a Division bench of this Court held that where a statute is inadequate or does not provide for a situation, judicial precedent will have to be followed. But, in matters concerning appreciation of evidence and drawing factual conclusions, even by resorting to legal presumption, there could be no precedent.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav on 31 July, 2008

16. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Nagpur Vs. Avinash D. Kamble & anr. Reported in 2008 II CLR 265. The Division Bench in the said judgment was considering a batch of petitions involving a dispute between the private employer and its workers under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971. In that case the Court granted the benefit to the workmen under the Model Standing Orders. The said judgment has no relevance and applicability to the facts of the present case. Articles 14, 16 and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:38:40 ::: 21 the rules framed thereunder Article 309 apply to public employment only and has no application to private employment. The State within the meaning of Article 12 is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16, and is obliged to afford equal opportunity to all, which is not a requirement and obligation in the private employment. In the present appeals we are dealing with issues in Public Employment, for which there exists a constitutional scheme which is entirely different from private employment. Thus the view expressed by the Division Bench in the said judgment has no bearing while deciding the questions raised in the present petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 94 - A P Deshpande - Full Document

Chaganlal S/O Girdhari Kundkar vs Parmatma Ek Sewak Nagrik Sahakari on 22 July, 2009

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Nagpur v. Avinash D. Kamble and another, reported at 2008 II CLR 265 (to which I was a party), has considered all these aspects and has held that the Model Standing Orders would prevail and that the observations in the judgments pertaining to public employment would not be applicable straightway to private employment.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R C Chavan - Full Document

Secretary vs Ballarpur Industries Limited on 6 July, 2010

In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Nagpur vs. Avinash D. Kamble & Anr., reported at 2008 II CLR 265, Division Bench of this Court has considered the issue of special entry of unfair labour practice and a general entry vis-a-vis items 9 and 6. The discussion reveals that the Division Bench ultimately in para 41 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:36 ::: 57 considered this argument and concluded that individual employees undoubtedly have a right to complain about failure to implement award, settlement or agreement, which include Model Standing Orders. It has been further noticed that though the grievance about breach of Model Standing Orders under item 9 may achieve a similar result, as the complaint was not about unfair labour practice under item 6 of Schedule IV, their grievance was of different kind emanating from different rights.
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sanstha Maryadit vs Vaijinath S/O Abasaheb Shinde on 6 March, 2013

Therefore, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have proved the factual aspect that they are doing the work on the posts of Group Secretary and in spite of that, the complainants were not made permanent on the said posts even though there was resolution dated 29th May, 2004 passed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the complainants are working as Group Secretary for many years and they are not granted benefit of permanency, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have acquired right to become permanent in view of the law laid down by this Court in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Nagpur vs Avinash D. Kamble and anr and Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghtana ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:42:54 ::: wp2502.12 19 (supra). Relying upon the said judgments, the Industrial Court held that there is clear intention on the part of the employer i.e. petitioner herein for continuing the complainants for many years only as a temporary workmen and it is only for depriving them from the status of permanency. The Industrial Court has again adverted to the evidence of the witness Shri Vasant Ghule for the petitioner herein and held that the complainants are entitled to get status of permanency on the posts of Group Secretary and the respondents No.1 and 4 therein deprived the complainants from status of permanency.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Sanstha Maryadit vs Vaijinath S/O Abasaheb Shinde on 6 March, 2013

Therefore, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have proved the factual aspect that they are doing the work on the posts of Group Secretary and in spite of that, the complainants were not made permanent on the said posts even though there was resolution dated 29th May, 2004 passed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the complainants are working as Group Secretary for many years and they are not granted benefit of permanency, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have acquired right to become permanent in view of the law laid down by this Court in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Nagpur vs Avinash D. Kamble and anr and Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghtana ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:43:02 ::: wp2502.12 19 (supra). Relying upon the said judgments, the Industrial Court held that there is clear intention on the part of the employer i.e. petitioner herein for continuing the complainants for many years only as a temporary workmen and it is only for depriving them from the status of permanency. The Industrial Court has again adverted to the evidence of the witness Shri Vasant Ghule for the petitioner herein and held that the complainants are entitled to get status of permanency on the posts of Group Secretary and the respondents No.1 and 4 therein deprived the complainants from status of permanency.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Sanstha Maryadit vs Vaijinath S/O Abasaheb Shinde on 6 March, 2013

Therefore, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have proved the factual aspect that they are doing the work on the posts of Group Secretary and in spite of that, the complainants were not made permanent on the said posts even though there was resolution dated 29th May, 2004 passed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the complainants are working as Group Secretary for many years and they are not granted benefit of permanency, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have acquired right to become permanent in view of the law laid down by this Court in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Nagpur vs Avinash D. Kamble and anr and Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghtana ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:42:55 ::: wp2502.12 19 (supra). Relying upon the said judgments, the Industrial Court held that there is clear intention on the part of the employer i.e. petitioner herein for continuing the complainants for many years only as a temporary workmen and it is only for depriving them from the status of permanency. The Industrial Court has again adverted to the evidence of the witness Shri Vasant Ghule for the petitioner herein and held that the complainants are entitled to get status of permanency on the posts of Group Secretary and the respondents No.1 and 4 therein deprived the complainants from status of permanency.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Sanstha Maryadit vs Vaijinath S/O Abasaheb Shinde on 6 March, 2013

Therefore, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have proved the factual aspect that they are doing the work on the posts of Group Secretary and in spite of that, the complainants were not made permanent on the said posts even though there was resolution dated 29th May, 2004 passed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the complainants are working as Group Secretary for many years and they are not granted benefit of permanency, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have acquired right to become permanent in view of the law laid down by this Court in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Nagpur vs Avinash D. Kamble and anr and Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghtana ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:42:57 ::: wp2502.12 19 (supra). Relying upon the said judgments, the Industrial Court held that there is clear intention on the part of the employer i.e. petitioner herein for continuing the complainants for many years only as a temporary workmen and it is only for depriving them from the status of permanency. The Industrial Court has again adverted to the evidence of the witness Shri Vasant Ghule for the petitioner herein and held that the complainants are entitled to get status of permanency on the posts of Group Secretary and the respondents No.1 and 4 therein deprived the complainants from status of permanency.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Sanstha Maryadit vs Vaijinath S/O Abasaheb Shinde on 6 March, 2013

Therefore, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have proved the factual aspect that they are doing the work on the posts of Group Secretary and in spite of that, the complainants were not made permanent on the said posts even though there was resolution dated 29th May, 2004 passed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the complainants are working as Group Secretary for many years and they are not granted benefit of permanency, the Industrial Court held that the complainants have acquired right to become permanent in view of the law laid down by this Court in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Nagpur vs Avinash D. Kamble and anr and Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghtana ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:43:00 ::: wp2502.12 19 (supra). Relying upon the said judgments, the Industrial Court held that there is clear intention on the part of the employer i.e. petitioner herein for continuing the complainants for many years only as a temporary workmen and it is only for depriving them from the status of permanency. The Industrial Court has again adverted to the evidence of the witness Shri Vasant Ghule for the petitioner herein and held that the complainants are entitled to get status of permanency on the posts of Group Secretary and the respondents No.1 and 4 therein deprived the complainants from status of permanency.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document
1   2 Next