Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.03 seconds)Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs Anil And Ors on 7 November, 2006
In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., vs Anil and Ors., reported in JT 2006 (10) SC 297, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where respondents are not recruited directly by Appellant-Company and was held that Labour Court would enable appellant either to directly employ respondents or employ them through contractor and accordingly, decided that Assistant Labour Commissioner was right in directing appellant therein to re-employ respondents either directly or through contractor. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held as follows :
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 5 January, 1990
In Ashok Leyland Ltd., vs Govt of T.N reported in 1990 (1) L.L.N 267, this Court (K.S.BAKTHAVATSALAM, J), while dealing with Sections 2 (s) and 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 21 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, held that security service of the petitioner company done therein being a contractor was not a necessary party to be impleaded, so far as petitioner company therein was concerned in the Industrial Dispute. It was further held that when contract system is in vogue, workmen employed by contractor are not workmen of the company. It is seen that a reference was made by the Government with reference to the same in G.O.Ms.No.2746, dated 12.12.2008 as follows :