Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Sh Suresh Arora vs Shri Kishan Chander Sharma on 23 October, 2021 cites

Narsinha Anant Joshi vs Century Shipping & Ors. on 9 February, 1994

In case, Narshinha Anand Joshi vs Century LCA no. 1413/16 page no. 26/28 Shipping and ors. 1994 LLR 440, it was held that when the nature of work of the petitioner/employee, the various duties performed by him, his status and position in the company, his ranking, all clearly go to show that he was employed mainly in the Administrative capacity and the work, which can be termed as work of clerical nature done by him, was only incidental to his employment in the Administrative Capacity, he was on the facts of the case, was not a workman.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak & Anr. on 26 November, 1993

31. He has also submitted that the applicant was authorized to do the acts, as mentioned in Power of Attorney, photocopies whereof are mark A, B and C. He has also submitted that the applicant was doing the managerial and supervisory works, as mentioned in the power of attorney, but, this applicant had started committing cheating and he had withheld the amounts of the management, which were taken from the Railtel and BSNL LCA no. 1413/16 page no. 12/28 and further submitted that this applicant had also embezzled the funds of the management and cheated the local persons of Bhopal and further submitted that this applicant had also settled the disputes with the management for a total amount of Rs. 2,0,000/- and this applicant had given in writing dated01.08.2012 Ex. WW1/XM-2 and submitted that as per the oral settlement, the applicant was to get release the remaining amount from the Railtel and BSNL and only after realization of the said amount, the applicant was supposed to present two cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, as mentioned in Ex. WW1/XM-2,but, the applicant has failed to make efforts for realization of the amounts from Railtel and BSNL and submitted that this applicant had presented one cheque which was dishonoured, but, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-,regarding another cheque, as mentioned in Ex. WW1/XM-2 was paid by the management to the applicant. He has also submitted that the management had paid Rs. 60,000/- in cash and Rs. 40,000/-, vide cheque to the applicant and this applicant had admitted in his cross examination on dated 28.08.2015 that he had received Rs. 60,000/- in cash and Rs. 40,000/- through cheque in lieu of the said cheque, which was dishonoured. He has further submitted that since this applicant has claimed that he was workman of the management, so, it was obligatory on the part of the applicant to prove that he was workman of the management. He has also submitted that the applicant has claimed that his salary was Rs. 20,000/- per month, but, he has failed to prove on record that he was employee of the management or that his salary was Rs. 20,000/- per month or that he is entitled to recover the total amount of Rs. 5,42,000/- from the management. He has also submitted that even if the contents LCA no. 1413/16 page no. 13/28 of the photocopies of Power of attorneys mark A, B and C are looked into, even then, it is clear that this applicant was doing managerial work, as, he was also doing the work of liasioning. So, the applicant is not workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has also submitted that the applicant during his cross examination, has failed to give details of the total amount and further submitted that the pleadings of the applicant are full of vagueness, as he has not mentioned the details of the amount sought to be recovered in the present application and during his cross examination, when, this applicant was asked to give the details of the amount of Rs. 3,02,000/-, as mentioned in para no.7 of his affidavit, he has failed to give any detail thereof and submitted that this applicant in his cross examination has admitted that he has not placed on record any pay slip and he has also deposed that he was having authority to give sub-contract, but, he has failed to produce any documentary proof thereof and submitted that the applicant was doing the work even beyond of the acts, as mentioned in the photocopies of the power of attorneys, placed on record being marked A, B and C. He has also submitted that applicant has relied upon the photocopies of Power of Attorneys marked A, B and C, which do not authorize to the applicant to engage any contractor or sub-contractor, but, despite of it, he indulged himself in such ultra virus acts and he has also caused great financial loss to the management and further submitted that this applicant has filed the application under Section 33 (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, but, as there is no prior adjudication about the right of the applicant for recovering Rs 5,42,000/-, as claimed by him in his application under Section 33(C), nor the LCA no. 1413/16 page no. 14/28 said amount is admitted by the management, so, this application of the applicant is not maintainable. He has relied upon the judgment passed by their Lordship of Supreme Court in case MCD Vs. Ganesh Razak and another, 1994, LLR 82 (SC) :
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 713 - A Kumar - Full Document
1