Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 50 (1.84 seconds)Berar Oil Industry vs National Berar Oil Industry Workers' ... on 30 January, 1987
15.
In facts before me, it is not in dispute that the similar
notification under Section 2(5) of BIR Act withdrawing paper
industry from application of BIR Act came to be issued on
02.06.1967. Thus, for the period from 1965 till 02.06.1967
only, the provisions of BIR Act were applicable to the industry of
Respondent No.1. As per the reasoning in the case of Berar Oil
Industry vs. N.B.O.I. Workers Union (supra) of this Court, the
certified Standing Orders, if any, of Respondent No. 1 framed
under C.P. Act, therefore, continued up to the date of cesser and
continue thereafter till they are replaced by Model Standing
Orders framed under Central Act. The contention of Respondent
No. 1 is that as no such Model Standing Orders have replaced
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:35 :::
22
the certified Standing Orders till date, the alleged certified
Standing Orders settled in 1954 continue to apply to the unit of
Respondent No.1.
Shri Gangadhar Balgopal Nair vs Voltas Limited And Anr. on 15 December, 2006
37. In present matter, I have already found that complaint
as filed is under item 5 and also under item 9 of Schedule IV of
MRTU & PULP Act. In this view of the matter, it is clear that
complaint as filed cannot be held to be not tenable. In view of
these findings, it is clear that the arguments on interpretation of
Clause 4-C of words "shall be made permanent" need to be read
"may be made permanent" or then need of any post or vacancy
for its operation are ill founded and need not be considered
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:36 :::
62
further. Law on the point as found by this Court in the case of
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh vs. S.L. Mehendale & Ors., (supra)
and Gangadhar Balgopal Nair vs. Voltas Limited, (supra) already
considered by me needs to be followed. It is apparent that Clause
4-C clothes employee with permanency and not with right to be
considered for grant of permanency.
Section 65 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.S.R.T.C. & Anr. vs.
Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana, (supra) has considered
the provisions of Section 21 from para 36 onwards. It has been
held that Section 21(1) of ULP Act is a special provision in
relation to unfair labour practice specified in items 2 and 6 of
Schedule IV and unrecognized Unions are barred from acting,
appearing or representing any employee.
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh vs S.L. Mehendele, Member Industrial ... on 25 November, 1999
37. In present matter, I have already found that complaint
as filed is under item 5 and also under item 9 of Schedule IV of
MRTU & PULP Act. In this view of the matter, it is clear that
complaint as filed cannot be held to be not tenable. In view of
these findings, it is clear that the arguments on interpretation of
Clause 4-C of words "shall be made permanent" need to be read
"may be made permanent" or then need of any post or vacancy
for its operation are ill founded and need not be considered
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:36 :::
62
further. Law on the point as found by this Court in the case of
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh vs. S.L. Mehendale & Ors., (supra)
and Gangadhar Balgopal Nair vs. Voltas Limited, (supra) already
considered by me needs to be followed. It is apparent that Clause
4-C clothes employee with permanency and not with right to be
considered for grant of permanency.