Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 19 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001
It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the
Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. Their Workman and Anr. WP(C)
No.14828/2006 decided on 19.02.2013 that perusal of decision of
the Constitution Bench in Steal Authority of India and Ors. Vs.
National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors, 2001(7) SCC 1
makes it amply clear that even where the work of an establishment
is carried out by employment of contract labour prohibited because
of the notification issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no
automatic absorption of the contract labour can be ordered.
Section 7 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar on 16 December, 2005
16. It is correct that it is mentioned in termination letter
Ex.WW1/M1(3) that claimant's contract agreement with
management No.3 was for one year and the project was reaching to
the completion stage and hence, his service was no more required. It
is not bearing the signature of the claimant. The management has
not placed on record appointment letter / contract executed with
him to the effect that he had been appointed only for one year or for
a particular project. In Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs.
Rakesh Kumar 2006 LLR 161, there was no pleading or evidence
of the management that claimant was appointed for a specific
period and termination of his service was on account of non renewal
of contract. The Apex Court held that such plea cannot be allowed
LIR No. 07/18 Page 17 of 23
to be raised for the first time in appeal. It further held that service
of the workman was terminated in violation of Section 25F of the
Act. In the case in hand also, the management No.3 did not file
written statement. It did not lead any evidence. So, it can be said
that there is no pleading and evidence on behalf of management
No.3 to the effect that claimant was appointed only for one year and
for a particular project. So, contention of AR for management No.3
that his case is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act is
rejected.