Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 26 September, 2000

Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Yogendra Singh Chouhan on 26 November, 2020

So far as the reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rhone- Poulenc (India) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, in that case exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution the reference was made to the Industrial Court and so far as the Division Bench judgment of this -19- M.P.No.2212/2020 Court relied upon by the petitioner in the case of R.R. Iyer (supra) is concerned, in that 8 WP No.10001/19 case the reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd. (supra), though the power under Article 142 of the Constitution is not available to the High Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

Petcare vs M.P.Medical And Sales Representative on 21 December, 2022

5. He has placed reliance upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of the High Court in the cases of H.R. Adyanthaya vs. Sandoz (India) Limited reported in (1994) 5 SCC 737; Rhone-Poulene (India) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 3182; SPIC Pharmaceuticals Division vs. Authority Under Section 48 (1) of A.P. & Another reported in (2007) 2 SCC 616; D.P. Maheshwari vs. Delhi Administration and others reported in 1981 (1) SLJ 406 Delhi; R.R. Iyer vs. R.P.G. Life Sciences Ltd. reported in 2010 MPLSR 312 (DB); M/s. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. vs. Judge, Labour Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 12/22/2022 1:39:42 PM 5 Court, Udaipur and another, reported in 2001 (90) FLR 257 and Rajasthan Medical and Sales Representatives Union, Ajmer and another vs. M/s. Industrial Research Institute Private Limited and another reported in 2000 (87) FLR 563 with respect to the issue involved in the matter and has argued that although the aforesaid judgments were quoted by the learned Single Judge in the order but there is no consideration to the same, which is reflected from the impugned order.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - R Malimath - Full Document

Zydus Healthcare Ltd. vs Shri Brijesh Singh on 15 March, 2023

7. Judgments relied upon by the respondents in case of Rhone Poulene Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and other, (2000) 7 SCC 675 has been passed by Apex Court of Bench having strength of two judges and in case of H.R. Adyanthaya and others (supra) is passed by Constitutional Bench of five judges, therefore, said judgment is binding upon this Court and as per said judgment Medical Representative does not fall within definition of workman.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Dhagat - Full Document

Yogendra Singh Chouhan vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited on 30 June, 2023

Because of non-payment of his last four month's salary and expenses he could not join at the transferred place. Consent was not taken from the appellant regarding the terms and conditions of his service hence his job was not transferrable at all. The appellant being a low paid employee was not financially capable of surviving at a costly city at Mumbai. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Reserve Bank Employees Association vs. Reserve Bank of India (1966) 1 SCR 25, National Engineering Industries vs. Shri Kishan Bhageria & Others AIR 1988 SC 329, M/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs The Judge, Labour Court and others, (2015) 33 SCT 58, Rhone Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs State of U.P. (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 675, SPIC Pharmaceuticals Division Vs Authority Under Sec. Us 48 (1) of A.P. & Anr., (2007) 2 Supreme 616, R.R. Iyer Vs R.P.G. Life Sciences Ltd. 2010 MPLSR 312 (DB), Usha Workers Union Vs Usha Martin Industries Ltd. & Another, 2003 LLR 760, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Shankar Lal and others AIR 1980 SC 643, H.R.Adyanthaya etc.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document

Gujarat Water Resources Development ... vs Gujarat Jal Samatti Vikas Nigam Kamdar ... on 15 April, 2005

13.1C As regards the contention that the award given by the tribunal is beyond the terms of reference, I have considered Sec. 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the reference made by the Court and also the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company India (P) Ltd. (supra), Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat (supra), Union of India v. Shantiram Ghosh (supra), Gorden Woodroffe Agencies (supra) and Rhone Poulenc (India) Ltd. (supra). In view of these decisions, I am of the view that the tribunal has acted beyond terms of reference and, therefore, when the tribunal has decided the same is contrary to the terms of reference then the said order is bad in law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prem Singh Choudhary vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited on 8 May, 2019

17- In Rhone-Poulence (India) Ltd. v. State of U.P.,(2000) 7 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under.- "the mere fact that after the order of transfer had been issued and when Respondent 3 had failed to report for duty, he was also asked by the Corporate Manager, who was competent to order his transfer, to join the duties at Kanpur will not validate ' the order of transfer issued by an authority not competent to do so."
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Ceo Eris Life Sciences Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2024

23. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of R.R. Iyer (supra) wherein while placing reliance in the matter of Rhone Poulene Ltd. Vs State of U.P. & ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 675 had held that by virtue of Section 6(2) of Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1976, a Medical Representative is a deemed workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the reference made to the Labour Court would be justified is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rhone Poulene Ltd. (supra) though by invoking powers under article 142 of the Constitution of India had directed the dispute to be carried under section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, had not taken a different view from that of the Constitutional Bench in the matter of H.R. Adhyanthya Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 02-08-2024 10:32:03 AM 24 (supra) wherein it was in specific terms held that Medical Representatives are not covered under the definition of workman but following course which has been taken by the Constitutional Bench in continuing with the reference, since long time had passed from the date of reference, it was held that reference would continue with Labour Court. Since the same is not a case herein, the said judgment is also of no help to the respondent.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document
1