Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.28 seconds)
Sh. Hitendra S/O Sh. Surendar Singh ... vs The Management Of Natwest Markets Plc on 12 March, 2020 cites

Management Of May And Baker (India) Ltd. vs Their Workmen on 13 January, 1961

The predominant nature of the work of the person employed shall be determinative of the question whether he is employed to do any manual, or supervisory or technical or clerical work in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in South Indian Bank v. A.R. Chacko , May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, Ananda Bazar Patrika v. Its workmen 1969­II L.L.J. 670 and Burmah Shell Oil Storage v. Burmah Shell Management If every employee of an industry was to be a workman except those mentioned in the four exceptions, these four classifications need not have been mentioned in the definition and a workman could have been defined as a person employed in an industry except in cases where he was covered by one of the exceptions. The specification of the four types of work obviously is intended to lay down that an employee is to become a workman only if he is employed to do work of one of those types, while there may be employees who, not doing any such work would be out of the scope of the word "workman' without having to resort to the exceptions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 68 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution ... vs Burmah Shell Management Staff ... on 12 November, 1970

The predominant nature of the work of the person employed shall be determinative of the question whether he is employed to do any manual, or supervisory or technical or clerical work in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in South Indian Bank v. A.R. Chacko , May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, Ananda Bazar Patrika v. Its workmen 1969­II L.L.J. 670 and Burmah Shell Oil Storage v. Burmah Shell Management If every employee of an industry was to be a workman except those mentioned in the four exceptions, these four classifications need not have been mentioned in the definition and a workman could have been defined as a person employed in an industry except in cases where he was covered by one of the exceptions. The specification of the four types of work obviously is intended to lay down that an employee is to become a workman only if he is employed to do work of one of those types, while there may be employees who, not doing any such work would be out of the scope of the word "workman' without having to resort to the exceptions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 197 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda vs Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari on 17 March, 2005

In Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemrhai Harjibhai Rabari, 2005(10) SCC 792 the question of onus and degree of proof for a claim of employment of a workman with the Management was examined. It was held that onus of proof was on the claimant, namely, the workman, who claim to have been employed by the Management. It was also held that the degree of proof will vary from case to case and if the workman had established a prima facie case, it would be the responsibility of the Management to rebut the same. In that case even though the workman had no letter of appointment, he had established that he had worked for 240 days with the Management. He was claiming to have been working as a driver of the bank and could produce vouchers, which showed that he was paid certain sums towards wages and that the amount had been debited to the account of the bank. With such evidence being produced, the Supreme Court held that the onus has shifted to the bank, which was then responsible to show that despite such payment, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 199 - Full Document

D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993

The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in D.K. Yadav Vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd (1993) 3 SCC 259 has held that even where the standing orders of the employer provide for dismissing the workman from service for unexplained absence, the same has to be read with the principles of natural justice and without conducting domestic inquiry and without giving an opportunity of being heard, termination of service on the said ground cannot be effected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 597 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next