Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.49 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board & Anr on 7 September, 2001
In the case of HUSSAN MITHU MHASVHADKAR vs
BOMBAY IRON & STEEL LABOUR BOARD, (2001) 7 SCC 394
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Muir Mills Unit Of N.T.C. (U.P) Ltd vs Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr on 1 December, 2006
In the case of MUIR MILLS UNIT OF NTC (UP) LTD vs
SWAYAM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA, (2007) 1 SCC 491 Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that professionals (Legal Assistant in that
case) can never be termed as "workman" under any law. It was
held that an occupation is a principal activity that earns
money for a person while profession is an occupation that
requires extensive training, study and mastery of specialized
knowledge and usually has a professional association, ethical
code and process of certification/licensing. Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that the claimant who was working as legal
assistant and used to supervise court cases is a professional
and could not be termed as "workman".
C. Gupta vs Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceutical Ltd. on 17 October, 2003
34. The view taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in C.
GUPTA (supra) was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of C. GUPTA vs GLAXO SMITHKLINE
PHARMACEUTICAL LTD, (2007) 7 SCC 171 holding that the
duties undertaken by claimant of that case fell within
managerial cadre as Industrial Relations Executive. It was held
that nomenclature is not of any consequence; whether or not a
particular employee comes within the definition of "workman"
has to be decided factually.
Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxo Smith Klin Pharmaceutical ... on 25 May, 2007
34. The view taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in C.
GUPTA (supra) was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of C. GUPTA vs GLAXO SMITHKLINE
PHARMACEUTICAL LTD, (2007) 7 SCC 171 holding that the
duties undertaken by claimant of that case fell within
managerial cadre as Industrial Relations Executive. It was held
that nomenclature is not of any consequence; whether or not a
particular employee comes within the definition of "workman"
has to be decided factually.
Mangt.Of M/S Sonepat Coop.Sugar Mills ... vs Ajit Singh on 14 February, 2005
In the case of MANAGEMENT OF M/s SONEPAT
COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD vs AJIT SINGH, JT
2005(2) SC 370 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the issue as
to whether an employee answers the description of "workman"
_____________________________________________________________
LIR NO. 586/06 Page 21 of 33 pages
22
or not has to be determined on the basis of conclusive
evidence and it would not be correct to contend that merely
because the employee had not been performing managerial or
supervisory duties, ipso facto he would be a workman. The
claimant of that case, appointed as legal assistant had not
been performing any stereotyped job; he used to render legal
opinion, draft pleadings and appear in courts as well as act as
enquiry officer in domestic enquiries. Hon'ble Supreme Court
held the claimant as not a workman.