Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Section 25 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Catering Cleaners Of Southern Railway ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 February, 1987
"6. It is surprising that more than forty years after the independence the practice of employing labour through contractors by big companies including public sector companies is still being accepted as a normal feature of labour-employment. There is no security of service to the workmen and their wages are far below than that of the regular workmen of the company. This Court in Standard-Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. v. its Workmen and Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v Union of India has - disapproved the system of contract labour holding it to be 'archaic' 'primitive' and of 'baneful nature'. The system which is nothing but an improved version of bonded-labour, is sought to be abolished by the Act. The Act is an important piece of social legislation for the welfare of labourers and has to be liberally construed."
The Custodian Of Evacuee ... vs Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor, Etc on 20 February, 1961
8. The learned Counsel for the Workmen lastly contended that the Labour Court considered all the material before it and its view does not call for interference, since it is based on evidence and contended that unless it is perverse, even if it is the case of error, this Court under Article 226 normally should not interfere, and brought to my notice the Decision The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore v. Saheb Abdul Shukoor and Ors. at paragraph 15:
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
in the present case, the Custodian had jurisdiction to decide the matter once it is held that the Custodian-General had jurisdiction to set aside the order of August 22, 1950. The main question for decision in these cases was whether the respondents were evacuees within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the first Mysore Act. The questions that fall for decision under Section 2(c) are questions of fact and as pointed out in Hari Vishnu Kamath's case, it is not open on a writ praying for certiorari to review findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal even though they may be erroneous. Further, unless there is a patent error of law there can be no interference by a writ of certiorari. While dealing with the writ petitions the main argument that appealed to the High Court was that the Custodian-General had no jurisdiction in revision to reopen the earlier proceedings and in consequence all subsequent proceedings were null and void. The High Court was further aware of the fact that the ordinary remedy of the respondents in these cases against the order of December 2, 1952, was to appeal to the Custodian-General under Section 24 of the Act; but as it was of the view that the order of the Custodian-General under Section 27 was without jurisdiction it held that it should interfere and set aside the order of December 2, 1952, which was also without jurisdiction and restore that of August 22, 1950.