Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.64 seconds)
Kalptaru Projects International ... vs State Of Gujarat on 26 March, 2025 cites

M/S. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 30 March, 2005

In the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 536 the Apex Court has Page 42 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined held that the reference presupposes that the respondents workmen are the employees of the appellant. The reference also proceeds on the foundation that their services have been "transferred" to M/s. Lafarge. On these suppositions the limited scope of adjudication is confined to decide as to whether appellant is under an obligation to take back these workmen in service. Obviously, it is not the reflective of the real dispute between the parties. It not only depicts the version of the respondents workmen, but in fact accepts the same viz. they are the employees of the appellant and mandates the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal to only decide as to whether the appellant is required to take them back in its fold. On the contrary, as pointed out above, the case set up by the appellant is that it was not the case of transfer of the workmen to M/s Lafarge but their services were taken over by M/s. Lafarge which is a different company/ entity altogether. It is further held that though the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the terms of reference, but at the same time it is empowered to go into the incidental issues. Had the reference been appropriately worded, probably it was still open to the appellant to contend and prove that the Respondent workmen ceased to be their employees. However, the reference in the present form does not leave that scope for the appellant at all.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 145 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time ... vs S.K. Roy, The Chairman, Life Insurance ... on 9 August, 2016

10.3. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, reported in 2015(9) SCC 62 wherein the Apex Court has held that even if some workmen were bound under the compromise arrived, this in no way deters their right to raise the industrial dispute and get the same adjudicated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 78 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Aditya Birla Insulators vs Commissioner Of Labour & on 13 August, 2013

10.4. This Court has perused the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aditya Birla Insulators vs. Commissioner of Labour and ors, in Letters Patent Appeal No.498 of 2013 wherein it is held that plea taken by the appellants that there was a valid settlement and, therefore, no Reference should be made is not only a disputed question of fact specifically controverted by the respondent No.2 but also such question cannot be finally decided by the authority referring the dispute under section 10 of the Act and can only be lawfully decided by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. In that background, this Court is of the view that no error committed in referring the disputed fact to the learned Tribunal for adjudication.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next