Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.56 seconds)
M/S.Bombay Intelligence Security (I) ... vs Mr.Harinarayan Jeet Bahadur Singh on 21 February, 2014 cites

Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd vs Its Workmen on 7 May, 1963

In this context, the reliance of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.1 on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case "Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. Vs. the Workmen 1" is apposite. In this judgment the Supreme Court was considering the case of an employee who was employed in clerical work. The contention of the employer was that in fact he was working in supervisory capacity. The employer contended that 1(1970(3) Supreme Court Cases 248) ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:13:05 ::: Pvr 22/28 wp2582-07.sxw the employee being Senior-most clerk, he was put in-charge of the Provident Fund Section and was given a small amount of control over the other clerks working in his section. He was also allocating work between them, to permit them to leave during office hours and to recommend their leave applications and hence, he was working in supervisory capacity. The Labour Court on appreciation of facts of that case had held that the employee was employed in clerical work and not in supervisory capacity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 57 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs Smt. Sunita B. Vatsaraj on 18 June, 2007

Clerical, manual or technical, the employment would not be in a supervisory capacity. It is in the light of these principles that we shall no proceed to examine the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in respect of various categories of workmen involved in this reference. " (emphasis supplied) In a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case "Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Sunita B.Vatsaraj (Smt.)" (supra) in dealing with a similar controversy and after considering the several decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court has held that mere designation of an employee or nomenclature of a post is not determinative of the character ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:13:05 ::: Pvr 24/28 wp2582-07.sxw of the nature of the duties performed by an employee. The Division Bench in paragraph 16 has observed as under:-
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - D G Karnik - Full Document

South Indian Bank Ltd vs A.R. Chacko on 2 December, 1963

"3. The question, whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on clerical work, in our opinion, depends upon whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a clerk. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but, incidentally or for a fraction of the time, also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity; and, conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally or as a small fraction of the work done by him will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity. This principle finds support from the decisions of this Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. V. A.R.Chacko and Management of M/s.May and Baker (India) Ltd. V. Their Workmen. In the present case, we have, therefore, to examine the evidence to see whether the Labour Court is right in holding that, because of the main work of Gupta being clerical in nature, he was not employed in supervisory capacity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 78 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next