Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.30 seconds)
Caparo Engineering India Ltd. vs Pradhanmantri Engineering Shramik ... on 2 January, 2018 cites

Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc vs Air India Ltd.& Ors on 13 November, 2013

38. The petitioner has produced the copy of agreement executed on 26.12.2006 with M/s Shweta for providing services in respect of maintenance of garden / nursing at the premises of its establishment only for two years. For the said period, one more agreement dated 26/12/2006 was executed between them for running staff mess / canteen . After expiry of the said agreement, a letter dated 25/12/2008 was written by the petitioner to M/s Shweta for providing man-power for the purpose of material handling i.e. Ex.-P/9, which was received and accepted by M/s Shweta. The said letter contains certain direction to the contractor by way of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2928/2017 (s) Page no. 26 Annexure-P/2. Under the said terms and conditions, the contractor was required to produce salary slip, attendance register, service tax photocopy and affidavit but no such documents have been exhibited before the court. After expiry of two years, another letter of similar nature was written on 25/12/2010 and finally the agreement dated 23/12/2013 was executed between the petitioner and M/s Shweta ( Ex.-P/14) for an indefinite period to provide manpower for the material handling job. The said agreement came into effect w.e.f. 01st January, 2014 and will be valid for the period, unless it is not mutually terminated by the parties and by virtue of the said agreement, the respondents are working with the petitioner, therefore, condition no. 5, as there is continuity of service as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Rai Saluja ( supra ). In view of this it can be safely held that all agreements or letters constituting agreements are nothing but sham, nominal and merely camouflage to deny the status of permanent employees and benefits to these 34 workmen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 129 - C K Prasad - Full Document

Amar Chakravarty & Ors vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited on 29 November, 2010

In the case of Amar Chakravarty, ( supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 per se are not applicable in an industrial adjudication, but its general principles do apply in proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this case gave an example that where an employer asserts misconduct on the part of the workman and dismisses or discharges, it is for the principal employer to prove misconduct by the workman before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, by leading relevant evidence before it and thereafter, it is open to the workman to adduce evidence contra. The workman cannot be asked to prove that he has not committed any misconduct. Since the petitioner came up with the case that the respondents are the contract labours, therefore, the burden has rightly been shifted on them to establish this and therefore, learned labour Court has not committed any error of law while directing the petitioner to lead evidence and prove that the respondents are the contract labours, therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 39 - D K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 Next