Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.60 seconds)Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009
14. Challenging the validity of the approach of the High Court, the learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire thrust of the judgment of
the High Court rests on the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) case which
was impermissible as the said judgment is clarified by this Court subsequently
in Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana,
wherein it is held, in categorical terms, that in so far as the Industrial and
Labour Courts are concerned, they enjoy wide powers under Section 30(1)(b)
of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act, 1971 ( 1 of 1972) (the MRTU and PULP Act) to take
20/24
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2024 00:18:08 :::
Sonali Mane WP-14510-2023 WITH CONNECTED MATTERS-2.doc
affirmative action in case of unfair labour practice and these powers include
power to order regularization/permanency. The Court has, further, clarified
that decision in Umadevi (3) limits the scope of powers of the Supreme Court
under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue
directions for regularization in the matter of public employment, but power to
take affirmative action under Section 30(1)(b) of the ID Act which rests with
the Industrial/Labour Courts, remains intact. It was, thus, argued that entire
edifice of the impugned judgment of the High Court erected on the foundation
of Umadevi (3) crumbles."
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
13) Mr. Talekar would further submit that Industrial Tribunal is
empowered to order regularization of a temporary employees by applying
the provisions of MSO. That the Judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary,
State Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. 1 does not circumscribe the
powers of Industrial Court to grant relief under provisions of Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Trade Practices, 1971
(MRTU and PULP Act).
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs The Petroleum Coal Labour Union on 3 August, 2016
In support of his contention, he would rely upon the
Judgments of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana 2,
Harinandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R To Management of Food
Corporation of India and Anr.3 and Oil And Natural Gas Corporation
Limited Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union And Ors. 4 He would further
submit that the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Municipal
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1
2 (2009) 8 SCC 556
3 (2014) 7 SCC 190
4 (2015) 6 SCC 494
7/24
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2024 00:18:08 :::
Sonali Mane WP-14510-2023 WITH CONNECTED MATTERS-2.doc
Council, Tirora and Anr. Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade and Single Judge 5
in Raigad Zilla Parishad & Ors. Vs. Kailash Balu Mhatre & Ors 6. does not
apply in the present case the as the regularization is sought in the service of
the State Government, which has all powers of creation of posts. That the
said two judgments are applicable only in case of state instrumentalities and
local authorities, who do not have power of creation of posts.
State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors vs District Bar Association, Bandipora on 8 December, 2016
He would rely upon
Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. Vs.
District Bar Association, Bandipora8 In support of his contention that
Labour Court and Industrial Court are not denuded of their authority to
direct regularization pursuant to Labour enactments.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Anita & Anr Etc on 12 July, 2016
17) Mr. Sawant would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in
State of Maharashtra Vs. Anita and Anr 12. He would submit that in Anita,
legal advisers, law officers and law instructors engaged in similar manner on
contract basis have been denied regularization by the Apex Court. That the
Judgment in Anita is implemented by issuance of GR dated 9 February 2018.
Mr. Sawant would pray for dismissal of the Petitions.