Search Results Page

Search Results

11 - 20 of 58 (2.29 seconds)
Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi on 15 April, 2000 cites

Manager, Jayabharath Printers And ... vs Labour Court And Anr. on 3 February, 2000

In case of Jayabharat Printers & Publishers Private Limited v. Labour Court, Kozhikode & Ors, reported in 1994 (2) LLJ 373, the Kerala High Court has considered the very same provision while considering the reported decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Dilip Hanumantrai (supra) and has observed that, 'the nature of employment must be judged by the nature of duties performed and not on the letter issued by the employer, if contractual employment is resorted to as a mechanism to frustrate the claim of the employee to become regular or permanent against a job which continues or the nature of duties are such that the colour of the contractual employment is given to take it out from Section 2(oo) then such an agreement cannot be recorded as a fair or bona fide and Section 2(oo)(bb) cannot be extended to such cases where the job continues and the employee's work is also satisfactory but periodical renewals are made to avoid regular status to the employee.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Suresh Vaidyanath Pagar And Anr. on 20 September, 1995

In the matter of Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Suresh Vaidyanath Pagar & Anr., reported in 1996 (1) LLJ 935, it has been held by the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court that, 'Section 2(oo)(bb) - Termination of service. Appointment purely on temporary basis for three months. Termination at the end of the period. Stipulation that service shall be continued if three conditions are fulfilled. Case held to be squarely covered under Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 12 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996

In the matter between Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 2526, it has been held that, 're-employement of retrenched workman Chapter V-A of the Act providing for retrenchment Enacted for all cases of retrenchment and not for benefit of workmen to whom See. 25F applies. Thus, application of Section 25H cannot be restricted only to one category of retrenched workmen.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 164 - J S Verma - Full Document

Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954

Mr. Patel has relied upon pronouncement of Calcutta High Court in the matter between Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, reported in AIR 1958 Cal. 273, in paragraph 8 and 11 of the decision, in short, has submitted that, 'writ of certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it or fails to exercise it and also when it acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard or violates the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that writ of certiorari if it is manifest error apparent on the fact of the proceeding e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provision of law. It says that what is an error apparent on the fact of the record cannot be denied precisely or exhaustively there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 1109 - Full Document
Previous   1 2   3 4 5 6 Next