Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.43 seconds)Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Superintending Engineer vs The Labour Inspector on 9 December, 2003
(4)No doubt, the court in the above decisions referred to a decision
of the First Bench of this court in Superintending Engineer, Erode vs.
Inspector of Labour reported [2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1003] wherein the
matters were remanded back to the Authority for fresh determination.
However, this court has not remanded back the matters involved in this
category and has held that there is no infirmity with the orders of the
Authority under the Permanent Status Act. It appears that no writ
appeal as against the same has been filed by the workmen.
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
(7) As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347],
similarly situated persons should be treated similarly with regards to
labour benefits. Therefore, when a particular set of workers are granted
relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be
treated alike by extending the same benefit.
Section 5 in Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 [Entire Act]
Superintending Engineer, Madurai ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 1 March, 2002
(iii)The issue was already settled by this court in The
Superintending Engineer, Nagapattinam Electricity Distribution Circle
v. the Inspector of Labour and others [2009 [4] MLJ 472] wherein it was
held that labourers should not be drawn into long litigations.
Section 3 in Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
A. Umarani vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies And ... on 28 July, 2004
It was
also clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the decision of the court
in Umarani's case cannot be misinterpreted or misapplied to deny the
legitimate claims of long-serving employees. The workers involved in
these writ petitions were engaged as contract labourers through K2/
Chit agreements by the officers of the management. They have provided
many years of service performing essential tasks such as the digging,
laying lines, maintenance works, etc. Therefore, the engagement of the
respondent workmen cannot be termed to be an illegal appointment and
hence the principles in Uma Rani’s case (supra) is not applicable to the
108/118
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.16609 of 2020, etc., batch
workers.