Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
The C.R. Manager Hindustan Petroleum ... vs The Labour Courtcumindust.Tribunal on 13 November, 2025
cites
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation mainly contended
that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent workman claimed to be employed
with the petitioner Corporation, that the Corporation being an
entity/undertaking of Central Government, the notification, in particular,
G.O.Ms.No.287, dated 07.05.1981, issued by Government of Andhra
Pradesh, purportedly exercising powers under Section 10(1) of the
CLRA Act prohibiting the employment of contract labour, in particular,
the sweeping activity would not be applicable and even otherwise
similar notification, dated 09.12.1976, issued by Central Government in
exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, since has been
held to be invalid by Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers1,
1
(2001) 7 SCC 1
4
CGR, J.
Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996
the Award passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable. She further
contended that mere issuance of an omnibus notification under Section
10(1) of the CLRA Act, even by State Government, would not ipso facto
prohibit the notified activity qua Corporation, unless the requirements of
Section 10(2) of the CLRA Act are specifically examined and considered
for the purpose of issuance of the notification, the same cannot be
applied to concerned Corporation in default. It is also contended that
the Labour Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour
Union2, which considered the effect of notification issued under Section
10(1) of the CLRA Act, however, since the view expressed in the said
judgment has later been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in SAIL's case1, the award has to go. Learned
counsel made reference to the order of the coordinate Bench of this
Court in The Chief Regional Manager, HPCL v. Labour Court,
Guntur3, which followed the judgment in SAIL's case1.
The Chief Engineer/Distribution, ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 21 April, 2005
the Award passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable. She further
contended that mere issuance of an omnibus notification under Section
10(1) of the CLRA Act, even by State Government, would not ipso facto
prohibit the notified activity qua Corporation, unless the requirements of
Section 10(2) of the CLRA Act are specifically examined and considered
for the purpose of issuance of the notification, the same cannot be
applied to concerned Corporation in default. It is also contended that
the Labour Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour
Union2, which considered the effect of notification issued under Section
10(1) of the CLRA Act, however, since the view expressed in the said
judgment has later been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in SAIL's case1, the award has to go. Learned
counsel made reference to the order of the coordinate Bench of this
Court in The Chief Regional Manager, HPCL v. Labour Court,
Guntur3, which followed the judgment in SAIL's case1.
1