Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.65 seconds)
Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi on 15 April, 2000 cites

Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay vs Association Of Engineering Workers, ... on 25 February, 1987

In the matter of Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay v. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay & Anr., reported in AIR 1987 SC 1478, it has been held that, 'a firm carrying on the business of metal processing i.e., heat treatment of metals, had two factories. Both the factories were situate only about 200 yards away from each other. Both the units had independent location, separate factory licences and separate municipal licences. The two units also had separate stores and maintained separate accounts and balance-sheets. On finding that the workman of one of the unit were wilfully slacking their work and that there was growing indiscipline amongst them, the firm decided to close down the unit. Closure compensation was offered to the entire staff of the unit. Industrial dispute was raised by the workmen who claimed that Section 25G was attracted as the two units had functional integrality and were for all purposes one establishment; case of bona fide closure of an independent unit of business to which Section 25G had no application from the fact that the two units were situate at a distance of 200 meters from each other, the fact that both the units were controlled by the same employer and that the business of heat treatment processing carried on in the two units was identical, it could not be said that the two units were really integral'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 55 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Rajvi Amar Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 November, 1957

In the matter between Rajvi Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1958 SC 228, it has been held that, 'on the construction of the Covenant, Government orders and notifications that no question of reduction in rank could arise and so Art. 311 was not attracted. All his previous postings in the new State were purely transitional and temporary and so far as Article XVI (1) of the Covenant was concerned, its guarantee had been fulfilled.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Workmen Of American Express ... vs Management Of American Express ... on 28 August, 1985

In case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, reported in AIR 1986 SC 458, it has been held that, 'Secs. 25F and 25B (2) - Workman Continuous service Actual working days - Calculation of Sundays & other paid holidays can be taken into account.' And it is also further held that, 'In view of Sub-section (2) of Section 25B of the Act, the workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service if he has actually worked under the employer for particular period.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 292 - O C Reddy - 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
1   2 3 Next