Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)
Shri Champavati Yantramag Audyogik ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 21 April, 1993 cites

Hydro (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd vs The Workmen on 30 April, 1968

9. Shri Yevatekar then contended that the petitioner-society was sponsored by the Marathwada Development Corporation, a company owned by the State Government, and since the State Government has not given assured financial support, they are not in a position to pay the wages prescribed under the Act. The financial condition of the petitioner can be sympathized but it does not absolve the petitioner from the liability to pay the minimum wages. While fixing the minimum wages incapacity of the management to carry on the business cannot be a consideration ruled the Supreme Court in the case of Hydro (Engineers) Pvt Ltd. v. Workmen, cited supra. Learned Judges were pleased to observe :
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 27 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Workmen Of Orient Paper Mills ... vs M/S. Orient Paper Mills Ltd on 13 August, 1968

In support of his contention, Shri Yevatekar relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Oriental Paper Mills Ltd. v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. , and in particular Paragraph 10 of the said-judgment. It is true that, in Paragraph 10 of the said judgment the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe that by the very nature of employment being casual, it can be presumed that a casual worker is on a permanent employee. The question which was under consideration of the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing lower rate for the casual workers and in not granting the pay packet of Rs. 95 per mensom which is granted to other workers. The judgment nowhere lays down proposition that the casual workers or daily rated workers are not to be given benefit of the Minimum Wages Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - V Bhargava - Full Document
1