Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Arkal Govind Raj Rao vs Ciba Geigy Of India Ltd., Bombay on 6 May, 1985
In Arkal Govind Raj Rao vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd. 1985
(3) SCC 371, the Labour Court had decided against the workman who
was employed as Stenographer-cum-Accountant and thereafter, as
Assistant. It was, accordingly, held that merely being a group leader
along with 2 others employees would not lead to the inference that the
6 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2019 14:17:12 :::
CWP-3396-2011 -7-
duty, as such, was clerical or supervisory in nature, to make him come out
of the definition of workman. It was, accordingly, held that the test which
had to be employed is whether the duties assigned were basic and primary
in nature and relevant to determine the status. Resultantly, the appeal was
allowed and the matter was remanded for disposal on merits, since the
preliminary issue was decided in favour of the Management. Relevant
portions read as under:
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Oberoi Flight Services on 6 November, 2009
19. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that in lieu of the
order of reinstatement, the petitioner is liable to be paid compensation, in
view of the principles as settled by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar
11 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2019 14:17:12 :::
CWP-3396-2011 -12-
Sharma Vs. Oberoi Flight Services 2010 (1) SCC 142, Assistant
Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh 2013
(5) SCC 136 and Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation & others Vs.
Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha & another 2016 (14) SCC 130, wherein
Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded as compensation.
S.N. Goswami vs Presiding Officer on 14 July, 2009
2. It was held that the petitioner failed to prove that he was
covered under the definition of 'workman', onus of which was upon him
and the Management had been able to prove the same by leading oral as
well as documentary evidence. Resultantly, it was held that he was doing
supervisory and managerial work and getting salary of more than
Rs.1600/- per month and he had admitted that he was not having any
evidence that he used to do manual work and was, therefore, not covered
under the definition of workman. It was further held that it was a case of
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2019 14:17:12 :::
CWP-3396-2011 -2-
abandonment from service by the workman as he had failed to depose as
to who had stopped him from performing his duties since 13.10.2003 and
he had made the complaint only on 18.02.2004 and therefore, it was held
that his services were not terminated in illegal manner and reference
made to the judgment passed in S.N.Goswami Vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour court-II & another 2009 (4) SCT 28.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Asst.Engineer,Rajasthan Dev.Corp.& ... vs Gitam Singh on 31 January, 2013
19. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that in lieu of the
order of reinstatement, the petitioner is liable to be paid compensation, in
view of the principles as settled by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar
11 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2019 14:17:12 :::
CWP-3396-2011 -12-
Sharma Vs. Oberoi Flight Services 2010 (1) SCC 142, Assistant
Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh 2013
(5) SCC 136 and Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation & others Vs.
Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha & another 2016 (14) SCC 130, wherein
Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded as compensation.
Anil Kumar Gupta vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 12 September, 2017
In similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Harish Kumar Gupta (supra), has held that the dominant nature of
duties is to be seen and few extra duties would hardly be relevant to
determine the status.
1