Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.26 seconds)Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs The Presiding Officer, Central ... on 8 July, 1988
Even the observations of Hon'ble
Patna High Court in Employers in Relation to... Vs. Presiding
Officer, Central 1999 (47) BLJR 2105 were based on the judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs.
United Labour Unions and Ors. etc JT 1996(11) SC 170 and in
Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board's case (Supra).
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996
Even the observations of Hon'ble
Patna High Court in Employers in Relation to... Vs. Presiding
Officer, Central 1999 (47) BLJR 2105 were based on the judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs.
United Labour Unions and Ors. etc JT 1996(11) SC 170 and in
Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board's case (Supra).
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001
As regards extent of control and supervision, we
have already taken note of the observations in
Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal
Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1
SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] ,
International Airport Authority of India case
Vijendra Kumar v. BSES & Ors.
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
M/S Icici Prudential Asset Management ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 25 August, 2011
50. Thus, in the absence of any reference on the aspect of the alleged
contracts between management no. 1 and 2 to 4 being sham and
bogus, this Court cannot go into the aforesaid question. A bare perusal
of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ICIC Prudential Asset
Management Company Ltd (M/s) v. Union of India 2012 LLR 245
and judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in M/s Prabha
Engineering Private Ltd Vs. Sarva Mazdoor Sangh and Ors 2018
LLR 828, relied upon by Ld. AR for workman, shows that in both the
aforesaid judgments Hon'ble High Courts were dealing with
proceedings arising out of a reference requiring the Labour Court to
adjudicate whether the contracts in the aforesaid cases between the
principal employer and contractor were sham and bogus or not.
Moreover, no evidence on the aforesaid issue has been led by the
workman in the present case.
Section 23 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2010 (In Re: Sugar ... vs 2.2.1 National Federation Of ... on 30 November, 2011
15. However, according to management no. 3, it had been able to
keep the promise only in respect of 32 workers by procuring job for
them, whereas, some of the workers did not agree to join on the
ground that the job was not being offered with management no. 1.
Management no. 3 has undertaken to give jobs to all the remaining
workers while denying all the allegations regarding adoption of any
unfair labour practice. Management no. 3 has also denied the
allegations of the workman that he was not provided with any
appointment letter or other statutory benefits. It is alleged by
management no. 3 that the workman was duly issued the appointment
letter, was paid his wages regularly and PF and ESI deductions were
duly made by management no. 3 from his salary. Management no. 3
has denied the claim of the workman that it had terminated the
services of the workman in violation of provisions of Section 25F, G
Vijendra Kumar v. BSES & Ors.