Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Section 12 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Dena Nath And Ors vs National Fertilizers Ltd. And Ors on 22 November, 1991
23. In conclusion, the Tribunal committed serious error
of law in holding that the contract labour system is a sham or
camouflage merely because of non-registration of the
establishment under Section 7 of the CLRA Act and non-
possession of licence under Section 12 of the Act. The Tribunal
also erred in raising the presumption that the workmen have
worked for more than 240 days, which is not based on any
14
evidence or scientific calculation. Since the Tribunal committed
a serious error of law and misconstrued the meaning of the
terms, "control and supervision", learned Single Judge rightly
held that the conclusion of the Tribunal is erroneous in the
teeth of the decisions rendered in the cases of Dena Nath & Ors.
v. National Fertilizer Ltd. [(1992) 1 SCC 695] and General
Manager, (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon, v.
Bharat Lal & Ano. [(2011) 1 SCC 635]. We do not find any
infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside
the award passed by the Tribunal and this LPA is liable to be
dismissed.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 23 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Arjunlal Rajak on 24 February, 2006
In the case of
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Durga Prasad [(2008) 5 SCC
171], Hon'ble Supreme Court held that onus and burden of proof
that the workmen have worked for 240 days is upon the workmen
and it cannot be placed on the management and the same was
enunciated in the case of State of M.P. v. Arjunlal Rajak
[(2006) 2 SCC 711].