Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)
Parry'S (Cal) Employees' Union And Anr. vs Third Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 25 August, 2000 cites

Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar vs Bank Of India on 6 May, 1997

14. Mr. Sengupta lastly contends that in view of inordinate delay in moving this application this Court should not entertain this writ application and in support of such contention, Mr. Sengupta relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India . After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record I am not at all convinced by any of the points raised by Mr. Bandopadhyay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 53 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd vs The Presiding Officer, Second ... on 21 March, 1997

15. As regards the first point that Section 25-N of the Act applies to the present case, I am at one with Mr. Sengupta that unless there is specific defence taken by the petitioners before the Tribunal, such point should not be permitted to be raised before this writ Court. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, no specific defence has been taken that the establishment concerned was a factory and that Section 25-N of the Act applies, instead of Section 25-F of the Act. Mr. Bandopadhyay in this connection strongly relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Parry & Co. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Madras and Ors. 1998-I-LLJ-406 (Mad) and contended that the establishment of the respondent having been held to be a factory in the said case, the said decision is res judicata and/or binding upon the respondent. After going through the said decision I find that the Madras Unit of the said factory in the said case was found to be factory. But the said decision, in my opinion, cannot be held binding upon the establishment of the Petitioner in the Eastern Region. Moreover, Mr. Sengupta has placed before this Court a Xerox copy of the order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated April 3, 1998 showing that an appeal is pending against the aforesaid decision of the learned single Judge. Whether the establishment in this case was a factory or not should be adjudicated on the basis of materials on record after specific defence is taken and the employer is given opportunity to controvert such plea. Mr. Bandopadhyay in this connection drew attention of this Court by referring to Annexure 'G' to the writ application wherein a category of 'packer cum store worker' has found place. By relying upon the aforesaid document, Mr. Bandopadhyay strenuously contended that once there are 'packers' employed in the establishment, the said facts indicate that packing is going on in the establishment and if that be so, the establishment is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m) of Factories Act. I am however unable to accept such contention. Mere designation of an employee as a 'packer' will not make the establishment a factory unless it is shown that the ingredients of factories as mentioned in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act are present. If I accept the contention of Mr. Bandopadhyay, then in a case where really a factory is being run, the employer can by changing the designation of the workmen to either a clerk, or officer etc. avoid the rigour of the Act. Therefore, for the purpose of entertaining the aforesaid plea taken by Mr. Bandopadhyay investigation of disputed fact is necessary and as such the petitioner is not entitled to raise such question in this writ application. I thus find no merit in the first contention of Mr. Bandopadhyay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

M/S. Om Oil & Oilseeds Exchange Ltd., ... vs Their Workmen on 28 March, 1966

18. As regards the other point that the respondent has not followed the principle of 'last come first go', I agree with the Tribunal below that in the absence of material showing departure from such rule, the plea is not available to the petitioner. The petitioner as it appears from the record did not dispute the correctness of the seniority list published by the company by raising any objection before the employer. Therefore, in the absence of the specific instance showing deviation from the aforesaid rule and of any objection before the Company disputing the correctness of the seniority list, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the Tribunal below on the aforesaid question. Moreover, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Om Oil and Oil Seeds Exchange v. Their Workmen , although it is an accepted principle of industrial law that in ordering retrenchment, ordinarily, the management should commence with the latest recruit and progressively retrench employees higher up in the list of seniority, but the said rule is not immutable and for valid reasons may be departed from. Be that as it may, I have already pointed out that the petitioner could not disclose any specific instance from the materials on record showing that there has been deviation from the above rule.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - J C Shah - Full Document

Managing Director, Bombay Film ... vs Vasule. L.G. & Anr. on 25 February, 1997

In this connection Mr. Sengupta relies upon a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Managing Director, Bombay Film Laboratory Ltd. v. L.G. Vasule and Anr. reported in 1998-I-LLJ-208 (Bom). Mr. Sengupta further contends that the employees in this case having accepted the said amount without any protest, even if there was any infraction of the provision of law, it should be presumed that those have been waived.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document
1   2 Next