Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.57 seconds)
Icici Bank Ltd. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 30 May, 2024 cites

Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board & Anr on 7 September, 2001

16. To my mind simply because the claimant was performing administrative nature of duties or was taking part in the policy making meetings of the bank with other officials of the bank, would not be legally sufficient to exclude him from the definition of the workman. It has been held in the case of Hussan Mithu Mhaswvadkar Vs. Bombay Iron and Steel Iron Board (2001) 7 SCC 394 that the designation of an official alone is not decisive regarding applicability of the definition of workman under the Act and one has to examine the nature and kind of his duty as well as power and functions of such official, so as to decide whether he is performing supervisory nature of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12738/2018 Page 9 of 23 By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:01.06.2024 18:10:18 work or whether he is mainly employed in managerial or administrative capacity or not. There is nothing in the evidence of the Management as to what was the supervisory nature of work/duty which the claimant was performing and in what kind of policy decision, the claimant has taken part. There is also nothing on record to show that the claimant had got any kind of disciplinary powers or any official was working under his control and supervision, so as to hold that he was exercising any supervisory authority over his subordinates. In this regard it is also appropriate to refer to the statement of MW 1 Ms. Penaaz Gupta, Manager (HR) of the Management Bank. There is nothing in the statement of this witness regarding supervisory nature of duty which the claimant was performing or what are/were the powers & functions which claimant was enjoying in managerial or administrative capacity."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Anoop vs A.K.Mishra,Executive ... on 5 June, 2020

32. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer. Public Health Division No.1 Panioat (2010) 5 SCO 497)."
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - A Mathur - Full Document

Mangt.Of Madurantakam Co-Op.Sugar ... vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005

30. Before delving into the merits of the instant petition, this Court deems it appropriate to briefly state the settled position of law in relation to the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with reference to industrial disputes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan, (2005) 3 SCC 193, has discussed the limited and narrow scope of writ jurisdiction in the context of interference in industrial disputes. The relevant observations are reproduced herewith:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 158 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next