Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.84 seconds)
Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi on 15 April, 2000 cites

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

Likewise, in the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Brojonath Ganguly, 1986 (2) LLJ 171 and in case of Delhi Transport Corporation Limited v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 (1) LLJ 395 has observed that Regulation 9(b) of the Corporation which provided for termination of employment by giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof vest absolute, unbridled and arbitrary powers in the employer to terminate the service and as such was violative of the Constitutional mandate contained in Art. 14 of the Constitution. The effect of this dicta or observation of the Apex Court is that any stipulation in a contract of employment fixing the term of employment or providing for termination of service by giving a notice for certain specified period of time or payment of wages in lieu thereof will be void, arbitrary and discriminatory and also being opposed to the public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Similarly, the termination of employment by non-renewal of the term of contract will not have the protection of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed vs Tufelhussein Samasbhai Sarangpurwala on 13 November, 1987

26. Therefore, considering the above settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts, according to my opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any jurisdiction error or procedural error apparent on the face of the record and Labour Court and Industrial Court has functioned within the limits of its authority and the findings given by both the Courts is based upon the evidence and it is not perverse. Further, there is no manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings and there is no clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law and both the Courts have applied its mind and there is no contradictory conclusion in respect to finding of fact. Accordingly, when there is no error apparent on the face of the record committed by both the Courts below, I dismiss this writ petition. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated with no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 125 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1