Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Madhya Pradesh Administration vs Tribhuban on 5 April, 2007
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. I have also carefully considered the submissions made by the
petitioner/college. The main contention of Mr. S. Nandrajog, learned
counsel for the petitioner/college is that the appointment of the
respondent/workman was purely temporary and contractual in nature,
and therefore, he could not claim either regularization much less could
be Ld. Labour Court direct the reinstatement of the same with full back
wages. It was also urged that under Section 25 (F) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 specifically excludes the persons whose services are
terminated on account of non-renewal of the contract by the employer
after the expiry of their contractual period. For this purpose, the
learned counsel drew my attention to Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also referred to the authorities of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in order to substantiate his submissions.
These authorities are M.P. housing Board & Anr. Vs. Manoj
Shrivastava (2006) 2 SCC 702, Haryana State Agricultural
Marketing Board Vs. Subhash Chand & Anr. (2006) 2 SCC 794, M.P.
State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. S.
C. Pandey (2006) 2 SCC 716, Delhi Transport Corporation Vs.
Presiding Officer & Anr. 82(1999) DLT 648 (DB) and Madhya
Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748.
M.P. Housing Board & Anr vs Manoj Shrivastava on 24 February, 2006
In Manoj Shrivastava's case (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
was concerned with the regularization of a daily wager who was
appointed as Sub-Engineer (Civil) wherein the learned Court has held
that where a person is appointed as a daily wager or as a casual labour
in a post which is not a sanctioned post and his appointment has also
not been made in accordance with the recruitment rules in such a case
he could not claim regularization because his initial appointment itself
is in contravention of not following the statutory provision of his
appointment. Moreover, there is no post of the Executive Engineer to
which he would have been regularized.
Talwara Coop.Credit &Service Society ... vs Sushil Kumar on 1 October, 2008
Similarly in Talwara Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Sushil
Kumar 2008 (9) SCC 486, the Supreme Court more recently held that
relief of reinstatement is a trite and is not automatic nor is the grant of
back wages automatic. The Courts while exercising their power under
Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act are required to strike a
balance in a situation of this nature.
Rolston John vs Central Government Industrial ... on 28 January, 1992
16. There are decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Rolston John
Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court &
Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 548, and Rattan Singh Vs. Union of India
& Anr., 1997 (11) SCC 396, wherein reinstatement was declined to the
workman who was instead awarded compensation in lieu thereof.
The Haryana State Agricultural ... vs Subhash Chand & Anr on 24 February, 2006
13. Similarly, in Subhash Chand's case (supra) also it has been
observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that if the nature of
termination of service does not come within the purview of Section
25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on account of the person
being appointed on a seasonal contract then he cannot get the benefit of
either regularization or Section 25(T) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. In such a case, it has been observed that the termination of
services of such engineer is on account of non renewal of their contract.
Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro ... vs Shri S.C. Pandey on 24 February, 2006
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. I have also carefully considered the submissions made by the
petitioner/college. The main contention of Mr. S. Nandrajog, learned
counsel for the petitioner/college is that the appointment of the
respondent/workman was purely temporary and contractual in nature,
and therefore, he could not claim either regularization much less could
be Ld. Labour Court direct the reinstatement of the same with full back
wages. It was also urged that under Section 25 (F) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 specifically excludes the persons whose services are
terminated on account of non-renewal of the contract by the employer
after the expiry of their contractual period. For this purpose, the
learned counsel drew my attention to Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also referred to the authorities of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in order to substantiate his submissions.
These authorities are M.P. housing Board & Anr. Vs. Manoj
Shrivastava (2006) 2 SCC 702, Haryana State Agricultural
Marketing Board Vs. Subhash Chand & Anr. (2006) 2 SCC 794, M.P.
State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. S.
C. Pandey (2006) 2 SCC 716, Delhi Transport Corporation Vs.
Presiding Officer & Anr. 82(1999) DLT 648 (DB) and Madhya
Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748.