Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Lalappa Lingappa & Ors vs Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., ... on 11 February, 1981
7. On the other hand, Mr. K. G. Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that after the amendment of the definition of 'continuous service' as per the amendment of 1984 with effect from February 11, 1981, judgments in which the definition of 'continuous service' as it was prior to this amendment, and the interpretation thereof by the Supreme Court cannot be of any aid to the case of the petitioner and the Appellate Authority at Surat under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has rightly distinguished the case of Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills.
Section 4 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 2A in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co., Ltd vs Workmen And Ors. Etc on 27 September, 1968
The Supreme Court also is referred to the report of the Badli Labour Enquiry Committee, Cotton Textile Industry, 1967, that the badli employees are an integral part of the textile industry and that they enjoy most of the benefits of the permanent employees; but there may not be any continuity of service in their case as observed in Delhi Cloth Mills' case. The Supreme Court has held that the badli employees are nothing but the substitutes. They are like 'spare men' who are not 'employed' while waiting for a job.
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
1