Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)The Advocates Act, 1961
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Nandlal More vs R. Mirchandani And Ors. on 19 August, 1966
"In Nandlal More v. R. Mirchandani, AIR 1968 Bom. 208, the Court was of the view that "officer" and 'office' are correlated and basically an "officer, whether he occupies a specific office or not, must be in the relation of an employee or servant of a company, firm or individual who is his employer or master, being an officer presupposes a relationship of employer and employee of master and servant." In that case the question to be considered was whether a power of attorney holder can be called an officer of the executor of the power of attorney. It was pointed out that a power of attorney creates a relationship of principal and agent and not of master and servant."
Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen on 9 September, 1976
7. The Full Bench has also considered the case of Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (supra) before laying down the above observations. I do not find any reasons to take a different view than the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The Andhra Pradesh Power Diploma ... vs The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity ... on 11 February, 1985
6. In order to become an officer, the person must show that he is in employment of that institution or an undertaking or a company and it must be shown that he is on the pay-roll of the institution or company. There is nothing on the record to show that Mr. Sharma is on the pay-roll of the said Akhil Union. What is shown by Mr. Sharma is that he is the General Secretary of Akhil Union but merely because he is an office-bearer of the Akhil Union, I am unable to hold that he is an "officer" of the said Akhil Union. As he could not be an "officer" of the Akhil Union, even as per the constitution of the said Union, he could not be permitted to appear on behalf of the member of the said Akhil Union. If the Akhil Union happen to engage and appoint Mr. Sharma or engage other person as an officer of that association, then alone that person can represent the member of the said association. This question of "officer" representing an association of employers is also considered by the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Diploma Engineering v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board & Anr., 1995 Lab IC 2654. In the said case, the said Full Bench has considered the word sal 'officer' and has made the following observations :
The Trade Unions Act, 1926
Mallela Suryanarayana And Ors. vs Vijaya Commercial Bank on 28 March, 1958
"From the observations made, it is clear that "an officer" was understood, so far as a legal practitioner is concerned, as one who is not a practising Advocate though he might have been one such earlier to his becoming an officer, and that in his present capacity as an officer of the association he is in its pay and under its control. It is relevant here to quote a passage from Buckley's Companies Act, Twelfth Edition page 681 which was extracted in an earlier decision of this Court in Mallela Suryanarayana v. Vijay Commercial Bank, AIR 1958 AP 756, regarding concept of the word "officer" -
K. Veeraswamy Deceased By L.R.K.B. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... on 10 December, 1959
A Full Bench of this Court in the decision in B. Veeraswamy v. State of A. P., AIR 1959 AP 413, also express similar view in saying "the individual who is invested with the authority and is required to perform the duties incidental to an office is an officer. For determining whether officers are subordinate or not, the test is not whether a review of such of their determinations as are quasi-judicial may be had but whether in the performance of their various duties they are subject to the direction and control of a superior officer, or are independent officers subject to such directions as the statute gives.
1