Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.38 seconds)The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Ved Prakash Gupta vs Delton Cable India (P) Ltd on 8 March, 1984
K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra, Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. did not lay down the correct position in law. This principle is now settled in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench.
S.K. Maini vs Carona Sahu Co. Ltd on 8 March, 1994
In S. K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., 1994(II) CLR 359 the Supreme Court held that a manager or an administrative officer is generally invested with the power of supervision in contradistinction to the stereo typed work of a clerk.
Standard Vacuum Oil Co., Madras vs The Commissioner Of Labour, Madras And ... on 1 September, 1959
While construing whether a person was in a position of management with reference to the provisions of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court held thus in Standard Vacuum Oil Co. v. The Commissioner of Labour :
Shri Aloysius Nunes vs M/S. Thomas Cook India Ltd. on 16 March, 2000
In Aloysius Nunes v. Thomas Cook India Ltd. the learned Judge accepted the dictionary meaning of the expression "manager" as one who has the conduct or direction of anything, a person who manages a company, department and institution or like entity. A manager has been defined as a person who controls and administers a business or part of a business. The expression implies certain control and authority. That a person has no subordinate does not imply that he has no control or authority.
C. Gupta vs Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceutical Ltd. on 17 October, 2003
A Division Bench of this Court recently had occasion to revisit the issue in C. Gupta v. Glaxo-Smithklin Pharmaceutical Ltd., 2004(II) CLR 23. In that case, the employee was appointed as an Industrial Relations Executive in the management staff cadre and he was required to represent the management before statutory authorities and other judicial and quasi judicial bodies. He was entitled to several perquisites which were not available to persons who were engaged as workmen and was empowered to authorize payments of substantial amounts for and on behalf of the company. The employee was required to assist the Industrial Relations Manager in developing a framework of settlement with trade unions. The Division Bench held on these facts that the employee was "Clearly a part of the managerial process of the company insofar as his work was used as a tool and aid by the management for a proper conduct of the business of the company". The job of the employee, held the Division Bench, was to secure the interest of the management and he was given independent work which could only be deemed to be managerial in nature.
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
In 'Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, the Supreme Court held that certiorari under Article 226 is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction when the subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none; or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping of crossing the limits of jurisdiction; or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law, rules of procedure or of the principles of natural justice where no procedure is specified, thereby occasioning a failure of justice. The supervisory jurisdiction is not available to a mere error of fact or law unless the error is manifest or apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law or a gross injustice has been occasioned.