Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)
Jalindar Ranganath Lahare & Ors vs Indian Seamless & Metal Tubes Ltd & Anr on 18 February, 2016
cites
Section 10 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S.Ltd vs Vinod Kumar Sharma Dead By Lrs & Ors on 1 September, 2011
11. The learned Apex Court in paragraph Nos.3 to 10 of its
judgment in the matter of Bhilwara case (supra) has observed as
khs/Feb.2016/2805-d
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2016 23:14:51 :::
8
under :-
Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt. ... vs Bhartiya Kamgar Sena And Ors. on 12 October, 2001
In the Hindustan Coca Cola case (supra), the learned Division
Bench of this Court concluded that the Trial Court also has to
consider whether the employer-employee relationship was recognized
at any stage in between the parties and as to whether the
relationship is disputed only after a complaint has been filed.
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001
9. The Judgment of this Court in Steel Authority of India vs.
National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1 has no
application in the present case. In that decision the question
was whether in view of Section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the employees of
contractors stood automatically absorbed in the service of the
principal employer.
Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996
Overruling the decision in Air India Statutory
Corporation vs. United Labour Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377 this
Court held that they did not.
Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Limited vs Sunil Rambhau Iwale And Ors. on 5 July, 2001
16. Mr. Cama also drew our attention to an unreported decision
of the learned single Judge of this Court (Khandeparkar, J.) in
Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Limited v. Sunil Iwale and Ors.,
Writ Petition No. 1433 of 2000 decided on 5th July, 2001. In that
case the learned Judge has not agreed with the view taken by
Kochar, J. in the present case and held that in view of the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Cipla Ltd. and Kalyctni Steels
Ltd. that only precondition to seek remedy under the MRTU &
PULP Act is necessity of existence of employer-employee
relationship between the parties and when its existence is not
already established or is disputable, the party has to first seek
relief under the Central Act, i.e. the Industrial Disputes Act or the
Bombay Act, i.e. the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, and if
successful therein to seek remedy under the said Act thereafter.