Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)
J. Elangovan vs The Central Government on 3 December, 2010 cites

Sankar Mukherjee And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 November, 1989

41. As already pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, the case herein cannot be compared or tested in terms of those decisions which rejected the case of the contract labour employed for discharge of a statutory obligation as not to be treated as employees of the principal employer. These decisions rested on the facts of the case. Whether there is a statutory obligation or not, the test for finding out the employer-employee relationship, invariably, in all matters, necessarily has to rest on the test as had been propounded in the decisions reported in (1990) (Supp) SCC 668 (Sankar Mukherjee and others v. Union of India and others) and (2001) 7 SCC 1 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. National Union Waterfront Workers).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 25 - K Singh - Full Document

Hussainbhai, Calicut vs Alath Factory Thozhilali ... on 28 July, 1978

In considering the said issue, the Supreme Court considered the earlier decision reported in (1978) 4 SCC 257 (Hussainbhai, Calicut V. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode and others), which was relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The Apex Court pointed to the contract labour employed in or in connection with the work of the establishment and cases where in discharge of the statutory obligation, the Management engaged the services through contract employment and pointed out as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 215 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001

41. As already pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, the case herein cannot be compared or tested in terms of those decisions which rejected the case of the contract labour employed for discharge of a statutory obligation as not to be treated as employees of the principal employer. These decisions rested on the facts of the case. Whether there is a statutory obligation or not, the test for finding out the employer-employee relationship, invariably, in all matters, necessarily has to rest on the test as had been propounded in the decisions reported in (1990) (Supp) SCC 668 (Sankar Mukherjee and others v. Union of India and others) and (2001) 7 SCC 1 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. National Union Waterfront Workers).
Supreme Court of India Cites 96 - Cited by 748 - Full Document

Ram Singh And Others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors on 7 November, 2003

27. Reiterating the said principles, in the decision reported in (2004) 3 SCC 514 (Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. V. State of T.N. and others), which, in turn, referred to the decision reported in (2004) 1 SCC 126 (Ram Singh and others V. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others), it was pointed out that the burden of proof lies on the party setting up the plea regarding the existence of employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court reiterated that the test of organisation or of control and supervision are the only decisive test and different tests have to be applied in different facts and circumstances; ultimately all relevant facts have to be integrated in considering the said question. Although on the facts of the case, the decision may not have a direct bearing, yet, a perusal of the judgment clearly shows, particularly in paragraph 32 that the nature of business is one of the relevant factors in considering the question of employer-employee relationship, particularly when the employees are drawn through a mechanism of contract labour. The Supreme Court pointed out in paragraph 37 as to the relevant factors, as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 97 - Full Document

Catering Cleaners Of Southern Railway ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 February, 1987

Section 11 of the Airports Authority of India Act, specifically provided that "in the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Authority shall act, so far as may be on business principles", if Section 11 and 12 are to have some meaning, then, applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway V. Union of India and another reported in (1987) 1 SCC 700 that providing of a lift facility being a incidental facility extended, piercing the veil of the agreement with the third respondent, it stands to reason that the contract labour have to be treated as regular employees of the second respondent herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 36 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd. Etc. Etc vs M. Venkataiah And Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 August, 2003

26. The decisions above-cited bring out two classes of employment taken on contract labour for performing obligations, namely, one under the statutory compulsion of providing certain services as in the cases referred to in (2002) 1 SCC 337 (Hari Shankar Sharma Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation), (2003) 7 SCC 488 (Mishra Chatu Nigam Ltd. and others V. M.Venkataiah and others), (2005) 5 SCC 51 (Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.), AIR 2009 SC 3063: (2009) 13 SCC 374 (International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union) and the other where, as a matter of obligation which is in contradistinction to a statutory obligation, the services are rendered by engaging contract labour as in the case of Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway V. Union of India and another reported in (1987) 1 SCC 700 and other cases referred to above as cited by the petitioner. In either case, where apart from engaging regular employees, services of contract employees are taken in order to perform the very same duties which are incidental and perennial in nature, an integrated approach needs to be adopted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Haldia Refinery Canteen Emps. Union & ... vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & ... on 29 April, 2005

25. The decision reported in (2005) 5 SCC 51 (Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.), relied on by the respondents, is also a case of statutory canteen. Repelling the contention of the Union that they are to be treated as employees of the Company, the Apex Court pointed out that the workers working in the canteen on contract labour are employees of the company only for the purposes of the Factories Act and are not the employees of the company. The Apex Court pointed out that the supervisory control exercised by the Management was only to ensure that the workers employed were well qualified and capable of rendering the services to the employees of the Management. Thus the Apex Court held the contract employees as not entitled to the relief of treating the contract employees as the workers of the principal employer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1   2 Next