Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 10 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 617 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The State Trading Corporation Of India ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 26 July, 1963
(see The State Trading Corporation of
India Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam(2)
and Tamlin v. Hannaford(3). Such an inference that the
corporation is the agent of the Government may be drawn
where it is performing in substance governmental and not
commercial functions.
Cantonment Board, Ambala Cantt. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 12 September, 1960
company. But that does not mean that the head of the
department which gives the directions as aforesaid or which
supervises over the functioning of the company is the
employer within the meaning of s. 2(g). The definition of
the employer, on the contrary, suggests that an industry
carried on by or under the authority of the Government means
either the industry carried on directly by a department of
the Government, such as the posts and telegraphs, or the
railways, or one carried on by such department through the
instrumentality of an agent. We find that the view which we
are inclined to take on the interpretation of s. 2(a) is
also taken by the High Courts of Calcutta, Punjab and
Bombay. (see Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. v. P. K.
Sarkar(1), Cantonment Board v. State of Punjab(2) and Abdul
Rehaman Abdul Gofur v. Mrs. E. Paul(3). In our view the
contention that the appropriate Government to make the
aforesaid reference was the Central Government and not the
State Government has no merit and cannot be sustained.
Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs P.K. Sarkar And Ors. on 9 May, 1951
company. But that does not mean that the head of the
department which gives the directions as aforesaid or which
supervises over the functioning of the company is the
employer within the meaning of s. 2(g). The definition of
the employer, on the contrary, suggests that an industry
carried on by or under the authority of the Government means
either the industry carried on directly by a department of
the Government, such as the posts and telegraphs, or the
railways, or one carried on by such department through the
instrumentality of an agent. We find that the view which we
are inclined to take on the interpretation of s. 2(a) is
also taken by the High Courts of Calcutta, Punjab and
Bombay. (see Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. v. P. K.
Sarkar(1), Cantonment Board v. State of Punjab(2) and Abdul
Rehaman Abdul Gofur v. Mrs. E. Paul(3). In our view the
contention that the appropriate Government to make the
aforesaid reference was the Central Government and not the
State Government has no merit and cannot be sustained.