Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs D. J. Bahadur & Ors on 10 November, 1980
In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D. J. Bahadur, (supra), the Supreme Court held that the settlement arrived at under Section 2(p) of the I.D. Act ceased to operate only when replaced by fresh settlement or awards arrived at under the Act regarding conditions of service and the same could not be altered till such settlement or award is operative. In the facts of the case at hand, it is not the case of the Respondent that the settlement which had been arrived at under Section 2(p) had been replaced or substituted by any subsequent settlement and therefore, this settlement is operative. On account of the development of the situation subsequently if it did not remain possible for the Corporation to continue with the settlement it could have taken steps to get the settlement modified or revised and it could have followed the course of action under the relevant law. But so long as the settlement is operative, the petitioners who are entitled to the benefits of such settlement cannot be deprived of the same.
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
The Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (supra), was also considered and in this case it was also noted in para 18 by the Supreme Court that under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the said Act to employ the employees as Badli casuals or temporaries and continuing them as such for years with the object depriving them of the status of permanent employees and privileges is a case of unfair labour practice. Item No. 10 of the 5th Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act also says that to employ workmen as Badlis, Casuals and Temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen will be a case of unfair labour practice.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
West Bengal State Electricity Board & ... vs Desh Bandhu Ghosh And Ors on 26 February, 1985
While considering the provision of Rule 9 of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Service Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1979 which conferred upon the Corporation the power to terminate the employee for acts other than misdemeanour - in para 98 of the judgment while referring to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Desk Bandhu Ghosh, (1985-I-LLJ-373) it was observed that,"...... a naked hire and fire rule, the time for banishing which altogether from employer-employee relationship is fast approaching. Its only parallel is to be found in the Henry VIII Class, i.e., a provision conferred an absolute and arbitrary power of the Corporation".
Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors vs Sri Vikram Chaudhary & Ors on 14 July, 1995
In the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority and Ors. v. Vikram Chaudhary and Ors., (1995-II-LLJ-703), it was held that in absence of availability of regular post for appointment the claim of the temporary wage employees could not be considered at par with regular employees for the purpose of regularisation but they should be given minimum wage under the statute and the direction was given not to terminate the services of such employees so long as it had work on hand, and to follow the principle of last come first go while effecting termination.
Daily Rated Casual Labour ... vs Union Of India & Others on 27 October, 1987
27. As against the aforesaid decision cited on behalf of the Respondents Dr. Mukul Sinha and Mr. Koshti have placed reliance on (1988-I-LLJ-370), in the case of Daily R. C. Labour, P &T Deptt v. Union of India, (1993-II-LLJ-937) State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and (1981-I-LLJ-1) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D. J. Bahadur and Ors. The Supreme Court considered the case of the casual labourers in Post and Telegraph Department and held that the denial bf minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen amounts to exploitation of labour and the classification of casual labourers for the purpose of payment and different rates of wages was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Virendra Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 February, 1981
20. It is thus clear that the view which had been taken in Virendra Kumar's case (supra) does not hold the field and the plea of discrimination as such or to claim the relief on the ground of parity as such may not be tenable, but the fact remains that in view of the circular dated August 16, 1984 itself the embargo of Engineering Section was given up and therefore, all the employees irrespective of the working in the particular section were entitled to claim as per rules and regulations, in case, they are otherwise entitled by policy decision dated December 29, 1978 read with Section 2(p) settlement dated May 11, 1981. The argument which has been further raised on behalf of the Respondent is that the petitioners were only Badli workers whereas the policy decision under Section 2(p) settlement were only in relation to daily wagers. According to the Respondents the Badli workers are not included in the daily wagers and so also they could not have claimed the regularisation under the policy decision dated December 29, 1978 and the Section 2(p) settlement. There is no dispute that the petitioners were workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 as modified and made applicable in Gujarat show that under its Schedule "I", i.e., Model Standing Orders the classification of workmen is provided in Standing Order No. 3. Badli or substitutes appeared at Standing Order No. 3(1)(c) and under the Standing Order 3(2)(c) Badli or substitute means the workman who is appointed to the post of permanent workman or probationer who is temporarily absent and whose name is entered in the Badli Register. It is thus clear that the Badli workers are in fact, the employees in waiting whose services are to be availed in case of the absence of a permanent or probationer who is temporarily absent. Such employees are appointed on daily wages and such employees cannot be excluded from daily wagers whether they are able to earn wages every day or not, may be contigent and correspond to an absence of a permanent or probationer employee but that by itself will not exclude them from the purview of being daily wagers. In fact, such a distinction, as is sought to be made by the Respondent so as to exclude Badli workers in contradiction to daily wagers, was never contemplated by the parties at any stage and the sequence of events, the facts and the documents clearly show that the Badli workers were fully covered under the relevant policy decision, the settlement and circulars issued subsequently and even otherwise in accordance with the provision of Section 18(3)(d) such employees as the petitioners are fully covered by the settlement which were arrived at between the employer and the workmen.