Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)
Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution ... vs Burmah Shell Management Staff ... on 12 November, 1970 cites

Burmah Shell And Storage And ... vs The Labour Appellate Tribunal Of India, ... on 29 May, 1956

of that of an intelligent and skilled clerk. This decision was upheld by the Madras High Court in Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, Ltd., Madras v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and two others(1) when the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was challenged by means of a writ. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. These two decisions can be of no help., because the Depot Superintendents, With whom we are concerned, Work under very different conditions. They are in-charge of large depots and have, on an average, 5 to 7 employees working under them. The amount of clerical work don by them is only a minor part of their duties, while the principal duty is that of working as Manager of the depot and of supervise the Work of the subordinate posted there.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

South Indian Bank Ltd vs A.R. Chacko on 2 December, 1963

In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A. R. Chacko (2), the Court applied a similar test when it held "We can find no mistake in the approach of the Labour Court to the question nor can we see any justification for interfering with its conclusion on the evidence in the case. All the relevant documents produced have been duly considered by the Labour Court in the light of the oral evidence given; and on such consideration it has come to the conclusion that though on paper certain rights and powers were assigned to him and occasionally he acted in the place of the Agent when the Agent was absent, such duties did not form part of his principal and main duties."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 78 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1