Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
T. Viji vs The Director on 7 March, 2023 cites

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001

3. According to the appellant, the Labour Court had held that the outsourcing agreement between the Director of Medical Education and METC is a sham and nominal one and such a finding has been rendered by the Labour Court after adjudication. That being so, the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the award. Further, it is contended by the 4\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No. 2660 of 2022 appellant that her recruitment was for the purpose of the respondent and only on being satisfied with the qualification and the quality of work discharged, she was retained for 7 years. It is also submitted that having utilised the services of the appellant for 7 years, her termination on the ground that the outsourcing agreement between the Director of Medical Education and METC came to an end, is arbitrary and unsustainable and the Labour Court was right in passing an award ordering reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service, which ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited V. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001 (7) SCC Pg.1)
Supreme Court of India Cites 96 - Cited by 748 - Full Document

Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015

4. Two issues were raised by the respondent namely, that the King Institute of Preventive Medicine is a Government Institution and it is not an “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that when the employee was engaged through a private agency for the purpose of carrying out paramedical work and when there is privity of contract, the Tribunal erred in holding that the contract was sham 5\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No. 2660 of 2022 and nominal. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the recruitment of the appellant through an outsourcing agency for a limited period was according to the policy decision taken by the Government to outsource paramedical staff and the appellant was terminated as per the orders of the Government. Learned counsel for the respondent/ Management has relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi [2006] 4 SCC 1 in support of her contentions.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 2142 - Full Document

Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009

(ii) appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed thereunder and by ignoring essential qualifications, the appointments would be illegal and cannot be regularized by the State. The State could not invoke its power under Article 162 of the Constitution to regularize such appointments. This Court also held that regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Regularization furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in nature. It was also held that the fact that some persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right for regularization. “ 12\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No. 2660 of 2022 The judgment in the said case is dated 10.04.2006. After the orders of the Apex Court, in all fairness, the employer should have stopped giving work quoting the judgment in Uma devi’s case. But the appellant was allowed to continue even after the agreement came to an end and the writ petition was filed only in 2008. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another V. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatan reported in 2009 8 SCC 556 has held that Umadevi’s case cannot have precedent over industrial adjudication. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 720 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1