Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)

H.R. Adyanthaya vs Sandoz (India) Ltd on 11 August, 1994

. As regards the word skilled, we are of view that the connotation of the said word in the context in which it is used, will not include the work of a sales promotion employee such as the medical representative in the present case. That word has to be construed ejusdem generis and thus construed, would mean skilled work whether manual or non-manual, which is of a genre of the other types of work mentioned in the definition.. [emphasis supplied] [p.755] The work that the respondents perform is in the nature of a creative art and their work is neither subject to an order required from the Art Director nor from any of the artists. In performing their work, they have to bring to their work, their artistic ability, talent and a sense of perception for the purpose of production of drama involving in the course of such work, the application of the correct technique and the selection of the cast, the play, the manner of presentation, the light and shade effects and so on. In effect, the work they do is creative art which only a person with an artistic talent and requisite technique can manage. To call such a person, a skilled or a manual worker is altogether inappropriate. An artist must be distinguished from a skilled manual worker by the inherent qualities, which are necessary in an artist, allied to training and technique. We derive support for this proposition from T.P.Srivastava vs. M/s National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd.s case [supra] wherein section salesman employed for canvassing and promoting sales of companys products in an area could not be put under the category of workman.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 142 - K Singh - Full Document

Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978

Dr. L.M.Singhvi, learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant is a unique institute of its kind in the country set up by the Government of Madhya Pradesh where all forms of arts such as performing art, fine art, music, drama, poetry and tribal arts are preserved, promoted and developed. He submitted that although this Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa & Ors., 1978 (2) SCC 213, has given a very wide meaning to both the expressions of industry and workman, by no stretch of imagination the appellant could be characterised as an industry, which is engaged in an esthetic activity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 985 - M H Beg - Full Document

Miss A. Sundarambal vs Government Of Goa, Daman And Diu & Ors on 27 July, 1988

He also drew our attention to the decisions in 1955 LLJ 448; Miss A.Sundarambal vs. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu & Ors., 1988 (4) SCC 42 [in which teachers were held not to be workmen although the educational institutions where they serve may be industry]; T.P.Srivastava vs. M/s National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., 1992 (1) SCC 281, wherein this Court held that a salesman employed for canvassing and promoting sales of companys product in an area involve duties suggesting of ways and means to improve sales, study of type or status of the public to whom the product has to reach, study of market condition and supervising work of other local salesmen cannot be termed to be either manual, skilled, unskilled or clerical in nature but requires an imaginative and creative mind and such a person cannot be termed as workman. He also submitted that the incidental activity entrusted to the respondent artists are all connected with the production of drama and theatre management and, therefore, cannot be taken to be a separate activity to class them as workmen. He submitted that the view taken by the Labour Court needs to be corrected at our hands.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 188 - A P Sen - Full Document
1