Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.03 seconds)
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs Vishnu Prasad Mishra on 4 August, 2015 cites

Janardan Tiwari vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd on 24 July, 2015

2: We have also heard the learned counsel for the parties in Writ Appeal No.428/2010 (Mohammad Hassan Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd); W.P.No.9378/2009 (Janardan Tiwari & ors Vs. South Eastern Coalfields & ors) and Writ Petition No.11679/2010 (PIL) (Gyanwati Singh Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and others). However, it is agreed that orders in respect of these matters be passed after deciding the issues involved in these writ appeals under consideration.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

S.C.Chandra & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 21 August, 2007

That finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Though relying on other decisions, learned counsel for the writ petitioners tried to emphasize that keeping in mind the documents of appointment of writ petitioners, it would be abundantly clear that they were appointed by the appellant Company. We are unable to accept this submissions, in view of the law already pronounced by the Apex Court. Though the decision in the present case was rendered after the decision in the case of S.C. Chandra and others (supra), but the fact remains that the said decision was not cited because the decision was rendered just on the date the writ petitions were closed for orders.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 305 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd vs State Of Saurashtra on 23 November, 1956

22. In order to determine the existence of employer - employee relationship, the correct approach would be to consider as to whether there is complete control and supervision of NALCO. It was so held by this Court in Chemical Works Limited Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957 SC 264, way back in the year 1956. The court emphasised that 1 (2014) 6 SCC 756 17 the relationship of master and servant is a question of fact and that depends upon the existence of power in the employer, not only to direct what work the servant is to do but also the manner in which the work is to be done. This was so explained by formulating the following principle:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 311 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Parimal Chandra Raha & Ors vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 29 March, 1995

18 : The findings given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 14 onwards in the impugned judgment indicates that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 12 Parimal Chandra Raha and others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others1 and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Shramik Sena and others2 were taken into consideration. The aforesaid decisions, however, are cases of statutory obligation or as a service condition to provide certain facilities to the employees. In the facts of those cases, it was held that though providing a canteen facility to the employees of the Company in the said case was not statutory, but it became a condition of service of the employees and, therefore, the employees of such canteen would indirectly become the employees of the Company. However, that is not the case in hand. On the contrary, a finding is recorded by the learned Single Judge that nothing was available to establish that the Company was under a statutory obligation to provide educational facility to the children of the employees. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider whether still it can be said that the appellant Company had accepted the obligation to run the school in question for the children of Company employees. That approach cannot be countenanced. The learned Single Judge has considered certain aspects which are required to be dealt with one by one.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 147 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ... vs Shramik Sena And Ors on 4 August, 1999

18 : The findings given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 14 onwards in the impugned judgment indicates that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 12 Parimal Chandra Raha and others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others1 and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Shramik Sena and others2 were taken into consideration. The aforesaid decisions, however, are cases of statutory obligation or as a service condition to provide certain facilities to the employees. In the facts of those cases, it was held that though providing a canteen facility to the employees of the Company in the said case was not statutory, but it became a condition of service of the employees and, therefore, the employees of such canteen would indirectly become the employees of the Company. However, that is not the case in hand. On the contrary, a finding is recorded by the learned Single Judge that nothing was available to establish that the Company was under a statutory obligation to provide educational facility to the children of the employees. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider whether still it can be said that the appellant Company had accepted the obligation to run the school in question for the children of Company employees. That approach cannot be countenanced. The learned Single Judge has considered certain aspects which are required to be dealt with one by one.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 113 - Full Document
1