Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Section 76 in The Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats And Industrial Townships Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009
Violation of Clause 4C
of the MSO may tantamount to an unfair labour practice under
item 9 of Sch. IV of the 1971 Act but unless & until, other
additional factors are proved on record, finding of indulgence in
an unfair labour practice under item 6 of Sch. IV thereof can not
be reached. As explained by the Hon. Apex Court in case of
Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari
Sanghatana, (supra), existence of a legal vacancy must be
established & as discussed above, the power to recruit with the
employer must also be demonstrated. In absence thereof,
workman can not succeed in proving the commission of unfair
labour practice under item 6 by the employer. These two
ingredients, therefore, also must be established when benefit of
Cl. 4-C is being claimed. Unless availability of a vacancy is
shown or then power with the employer to create the post and to
fill it is brought on record, mere continuation of 240 days can not
and does not enable the workman to claim permanency by
taking recourse to Cl. 4C read with item 9 of Sch. IV of 1971 Act.
Clause 4C does not employ word "regularisation" but then it is
implicit in it as no "permanency" is possible without it.
Conversely, it follows that when a statutory provision like S. 76
disables the employer either from creating or filling in the posts,
such a claim can not be sustained.
Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd vs Industrial Court on 23 February, 1994
The judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Indian
Tobacco Company Ltd. v. The Industrial Court and Ors. (supra),
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court affirming it or then judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported at Western India Match Company
Ltd. and Workmen are all considered therein & are
distinguishable as the same do not pertain to the province of
public employment or consider inherent Constitutional restraints
(the suprema lex - see Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development
Authority and others (supra) and Cl. 32 of the MSO. For same
reasons, law laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court
in 2007 (1) CLR 460- 2007 (1) Mah.
Mahendra L. Jain & Ors vs Indore Development Authority & Ors on 22 November, 2004
The judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Indian
Tobacco Company Ltd. v. The Industrial Court and Ors. (supra),
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court affirming it or then judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported at Western India Match Company
Ltd. and Workmen are all considered therein & are
distinguishable as the same do not pertain to the province of
public employment or consider inherent Constitutional restraints
(the suprema lex - see Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development
Authority and others (supra) and Cl. 32 of the MSO. For same
reasons, law laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court
in 2007 (1) CLR 460- 2007 (1) Mah.
The Municipal Coulcil And Another vs Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade on 22 July, 2016
14. Though the submissions of Mr.Sant appear to be attractive, I
am unable to accept the same in the light of the judgment delivered
in the case of Municipal Council, Tuljapur (supra) Municipal Council,
Tirora (supra).
May And Bakar Ltd. vs Shri Kishore Jaikrishandas Ichaporia ... on 1 July, 1991
The Division Bench of this Court in May &
Baker Ltd. v. Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia (supra) while
construing Section held that the expression "other law" would not
refer to the model standing orders or the certified standing orders
since they are laws made under the provisions of parent act
itself and not under any other law. The Model Standing Orders
and Certified Standing Orders, held the Division Bench, "are
laws no doubt but they are laws made under the provisions of
khs/DEC.2016/2710
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2016 00:56:01 :::
34
the Act". They were held not to be provisions under any other
law. This discussion therefore shows how these words "in
derogation of any law for the time being in force" in Cl. 32 of
MSO need to be understood & does not help Adv. Jaiswal or
Adv. Khan."
Section 28 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Shri Gangadhar Balgopal Nair vs Voltas Limited And Anr. on 15 December, 2006
L.J. 754- Gangadhar
Balgopal Nair v. Voltas Limited & Anr. does not advance the
cause of workmen.