Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Section 32 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009
16. Therefore, it follows from the authoritative
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of
Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana (supra)
that power of Industrial and Labour Court u/s 30 of
the Act
did not call for adjudication or
consideration before the constitution Bench in the
case of Umadvi (supra) and does not denude the
Industrial or Labour Court of their statutory power
under Section 30 r/w Section 32 of the said Act to
order permanency of workers, who have been victims
of unfair labour practice on part of employer under
Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. And Ors. Etc. ... vs Mr. Avinash D. Kamble And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 3 March, 2008
Therefore, the Industrial Court held that the
complainants have proved the factual aspect that
they are doing the work on the posts of Group
Secretary and in spite of that, the complainants
were not made permanent on the said posts even
though there was resolution dated 29th May, 2004
passed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, taking
into consideration the fact that the complainants
are working as Group Secretary for many years and
they are not granted benefit of permanency, the
Industrial Court held that the complainants have
acquired right to become permanent in view of the
law laid down by this Court in case of Mahindra &
Mahindra Ltd., Nagpur vs Avinash D. Kamble and anr
and Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghtana
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:42:57 :::
wp2502.12
19
(supra). Relying upon the said judgments, the
Industrial Court held that there is clear intention
on the part of the employer i.e. petitioner herein
for continuing the complainants for many years only
as a temporary workmen and it is only for depriving
them from the status of permanency. The Industrial
Court has again adverted to the evidence of the
witness Shri Vasant Ghule for the petitioner herein
and held that the complainants are entitled to get
status of permanency on the posts of Group
Secretary and the respondents No.1 and 4 therein
deprived the complainants from status of
permanency.
Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Anr on 9 January, 2001
13. Upon careful perusal of the said letter, it is
abundantly clear that not only that the
complainants were given the work of Group Secretary
but, their salary was restricted to Rs.3500 and
they were prohibited from drawing any wages /
benefits from respondent No.4 society. Therefore,
the Industrial Court has rightly not paid attention
to such contention of the petitioner - employer
that there is no relationship between the
petitioner and complainants as employer and
employee. Therefore, the reliance placed by the
petitioner on the reported case of this Court in
case of Hajarabi Abbas Khatik (supra) and the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sarva
Shramik Sangh, and in case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha
vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd.(supra) is wholly misplaced
in the facts of the present case. Secondly, it is
not in dispute that the petitioner had passed
resolution on 29th May, 2004. The said resolution
is part of the record before the Industrial Court.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
respondent No.1 have been continuously working and
discharging the duties on the posts of Group
Secretary. The appointments of the complainants as
a Group Secretaries were to implement certain
schemes and to avoid loss to the petitioner and
also reputation of the Government. Therefore,
considering the case in totality, the Industrial
Court has taken into consideration the resolution
passed by the petitioner, the fact that the
complainants have completed more than 240 days of
service in a calendar year and they are
discharging duties continuously on the posts of
Group Secretary and appointment letters have been
issued by the petitioner to the complainants
appointing them as a Group Secretaries and
therefore, the view taken by the Industrial Court
needs no interference. The learned Counsel for the
complainants - respondent No.1 submitted that the
decision in case of Umadevi (supra) is no bar to
the Industrial / Labour Courts to exercise powers
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:42:57 :::
wp2502.12
15
u/s 30 of the said Act.
1