Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.47 seconds)The Executive Engineer(State Of ... vs K. Somasetty & Ors on 2 May, 1997
In a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Executive Engineer, State of Karnataka v. K. Somashetty & others (supra), relied upon by the learned A.G.P, it has been held that the Irrigation Department of Karnataka State is not an industry, as defined under the Act. The petitioners, therefore, contended that on this preliminary issue viz. that the petitioner is not an Industry, as defined under the Act, a reference made on the demand of respondent, was not maintainable before the Labour Court. It is clear from the record that this point was never raised before the Labour Court and it has now been raised for the first time, during the course of arguments and mostly, on the basis of the two judgments of the Supreme Court cited hereinabove.
Management Of R.S. Madhoramand Sons ... vs Its Workmen on 14 November, 1963
10. The learned Judge of the Labour Court in the impugned Award observed that as the provisions of Limitations Act are not applicable for adjudication of disputes under Act, the plea of the petitioners of long delay of more than five years, was not considered and the same came to be rejected. The merit of this case has to be decided on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh S Sons Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1961(II) Labour Law Journal 89 (S.C.) in which, inter alia, it is held that :
Shri Ganesh Enterprises P. Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 2 May, 1994
11. More recently, in the case of P. Ganeshan v. Union of India and other, reported in 1993(1) Bom.C.R. 346 : 1993 L.I.C. 802, a learned Single Judge of this Court- on the point of referring stale case for the adjudication under the Act held thus (Para 9 Bom.C.R.):
Delhi Development Horticulture ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors on 4 February, 1992
14. In the instant case also, the relief granted by the Labour Court, in a case where the dispute did not exist for a period of five years, has irreparable effects on public employment. A temporary unskilled dailywage labour, appointed on the sweet will of an officer, in effect, has been granted permanent Government Service, by the Labour Court inspite of the fact that his initial engagement in the Government service was purely on a temporary basis. There is a prescribed procedure to be followed for appointments on permanent basis in the Government service. To accept the impugned award of the Labour Court is not only against the Law laid down by the Apex Court, as stated hereinabove, but also against the public policy, as it leads to a backdoor entry in Government service, when millions are waiting in queue, after having registered their names in the Employment Exchanges, for appointments in Government Service.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Suresh Kumar Verma & Aar on 24 January, 1996
15. There is another aspect which also needs to be considered. Admittedly, Kukadi Irrigation Project, Division No. 2, Narayangaon, where the respondent was in employment on a temporary basis, has since been closed. The Apex-Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar, , interalia, held as under :