Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Hindustan Lever Limited vs Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha on 22 January, 2001 cites

Binny Limited vs Presiding Officer And Ors. on 5 June, 1984

10. In the present case there is not only a vast majority but except a lone soul, all other field force employees have signed the settlement and they are presumed to be fair and just and are not liable to be ignored at all. Shri Rele has further cited an unreported judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of The Management of Binny Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer and Ors.,2 wherein in para 73 the learned Judge has observed as under :-
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

H.R. Adyanthaya vs Sandoz (India) Ltd on 11 August, 1994

14. Mrs. Doshi has further contended that all the issues which were framed by the Tribunal are interconnected and they required to be decided. Shri Rele has absolutely no objection for the Tribunal to decide all these issues. I fail to understand how the union can come in the way of the field force employees who have settled their disputes with the petitioner Company, by filing a legal and valid 2(p) settlement before the Tribunal. The field force employees have also appeared to have considered the question of challenge to their status as "workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of H.R. Adhyanthaya v. Sandoze India Ltd., wherein a sales representative is held not to be a workman. Instead of taking any risk as a practical solution, the field force employees have entered into a 2(p) settlement individually to get certain benefits. In case if they arc held to be not workmen, they will not get any benefit in the award.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 142 - K Singh - Full Document
1