Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Manager, M/S. Pyarchand Kesarimal ... vs Omkar Laxman Thange & Ors on 27 September, 1968

Hardwari Lal vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary ... on 29 May, 2009

32. The next submission of learned senior counsel for the employees was that transfer of employer is not permissible without tripartite agreement. As per the law laid down in Nokes vs Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd., (1940) 3 All E.R. 549 and decision of this Court in Manager, M/s. Pyarchand Kesarimal Ponwal Bidi Factory vs. Omkar Laxman Thange & Ors., (1969) 2 SCR 272, the consent must be express and consciously accorded in the course of negotiation contemporous with the process of transfer so as to amount to an informed consent. Consequently, in order to bind the appellants, there must be a tripartite agreement. Since there is no tripartite agreement, as observed above, the transfer from one employer to another cannot be effected.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bcpp Mazdoor Sangh & Anr vs N.T.P.C. & Ors on 11 October, 2007

28. The next submission of learned senior counsel for the employees was that transfer of employer is not permissible without tripartite agreement. As per the law laid down in Nokes vs Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd., (1940) 3 All E.R. 549 and decision of this Court in Manager, M/s. Pyarchand Kesarimal Ponwal Bidi Factory vs. Omkar Laxman Thange & Ors., (1969) 2 SCR 272, the consent must be express and consciously accorded in the course of negotiation contemporous with the process of transfer so as to amount to an informed consent. Consequently, in order to bind the appellants, there must be a tripartite agreement. Since there is no tripartite agreement, as observed above, the transfer from one employer to another cannot be effected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 37 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Ashoka Marketing Ltd. vs Addl. Registrar Of Companies on 2 March, 1983

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has elaborated the aforesaid points and jetted on the decision in the case of Mahalderam Tea Estate Ltd. v. D.N. Prodhan [1979] 49 Comp Cas 529 ; 1978 CHN 336, in relation to the first point, the decision in the case of Pyarchand Kesarimal Potwal Bidi Factory v. Onkar Laxman Thenge , in connection with the third point and the decision in the case of Registrar of Companies v. Bharat Produce Co. Ltd. [1980] 50 Comp Cas 250 (Cal), in support of the fourth point.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cement Corporation Of India Ltd., New ... vs B.B.V. Krishnam Raju on 2 November, 1999

Nizam Sugars Limited (NSL for brevity) had a number of sugar manufacturing factories/units in Andhra Pradesh. As one of its units namely Nizam Sugar Factory at Sudhanagar, Hindupur in Anantapur District was running in losses it was decided by the Board of Directors to transfer the Unit at Sudhanagar, Hindupur along with machinery and staff to a third party. The Officers Association has challenged the same as being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents justified the transfer contending that in view of the contract of employment of petitioners and NSL, the petitioners are liable to be transferred to the new employer/third party that as the service conditions of petitioners are protected and the third respondent agreed to absorb all the petitioners, the staff members and officers are bound to work with the new employer. B.S. Raikote, J, after referring to Onkar's case, (supra), JNU's case (supra) and also the Orissa Engineers case (supra), held that in the absence of any tripartite agreement, the officers cannot be transferred to third party and that if by any reason the Unit at Hindupur is required to be closed or transferred to some third party, the petitioners could be transferred to other units, if they are not willing to go under the employment of a third party.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M. Thirupathi Reddy And Others vs Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Oilseeds ... on 6 June, 2000

In Pyarchand's case (supra) the appellant-firm was conducting a number of bidi factories at various places in Vidharba including the one at Kamptee. Its head office was also situated there. The factory at Kamptee and the head office have always been treated as separate entities though owned by the same firm. Consequently, the head office was registered under the Central Provinces and Berar Shops Establishments Act, 1947 and the factory at Kamptee was registered under the Factories Act. The factory had also its own standing orders certified under the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The first respondent-Sri O.L. Thenge was originally employed in the factory at Kamptee. Two or three years thereafter he was directed to work at the head office and worked therein for about six years prior to the impugned order of dismissal passed against him by the Munim of the head office. Aggrieved by the said order the first respondent filed an application under Section 16 of the CP and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act alleging that the said order was incompetent and illegal. The application was opposed by the appellant-firm contending that the dismissal order has not been passed by it as the owner ofthe said factory and, therefore, the application was misconceived. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application holding that the first respondent at the material time was not the employee in the factory, but was employed in the firm's head office. He relied on the fact that the head office and the factory had separate rules, that the first respondent used to sign his attendance in the register of the head office, that he was being paid his salary by the head office, and lastly, that his name was not on the muster roll of the factory. He also found that whereas the staff of the head office was governed by the C.P. and Berar Shops and Establishments Act, the factory was governed by the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. Against the dismissal of his application the first respondent filed a revision application before the Industrial Court, Nagapur. The Industrial Court dismissed the application holding that the only question raised before it was whether the first respondent was the employee of the head office and that being purely a question of fact, he could not interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the said orders. The High Court held that it was possible in law for an employer to have various establishments where different kinds of work would be done, in which case an employee in one establishment would be liable to be transferred to another establishment. But the High Court observed that unless it was established that the employment of respondent No.l in the factory was legally terminated it could not be assumed, merely because he was directed to work in the head office that his employment was changed and the head office was substituted as his employer in place of the said factory. As the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was not clear on this question, the High Court remanded the case for disposal according to law. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellant-factory preferred civil appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court while dismissing the civil appeal and affirming the judgment of the High Court in Paragraph 8 observed thus:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ithad Motor Transport (P) Ltd. vs Bir Singh And Ors. on 10 January, 1973

28. Besides as held in Pyar Chand Kesarimal Porwal Bidi Factory's case (supra), by assigning the services of the workman at the petrol pump the company as an employer ordered him to do a certain work for another person at the behest of the company which continued to be his employer. By joining the duties at the petrol pump all that the workman did was to carry out the orders of his master, viz. to the company. As such, the workman has a right to claim his wages from the company. The laches committed on the part of the company in not deciding the case of the workman properly cannot be made a ground to repel the claim of the workman by holding that the claim had become stale by 1968 when the dispute was referred to the Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next