Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001
It is further clarified that the Respondent No. 2 is
free to seek the relief of regularization pursuant to Paragraph
W.P.(C) 1266/2015 Page 25 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:12.09.2022
18:11:20
125 (5) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel
Authority of India Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers &
Ors. Should the award of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal, which found the contract between the security guards
and the Petitioner to be a sham and bogus one, be upheld in the
aforementioned Writ Petition.
Section 5 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2006
34.This view was reiterated in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs.
Union Of India, (2006) 12 SCC 233 at Para 20, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors vs G. Srinivas Reddy & Ors on 24 February, 2006
36.In the same vein, in A.P. SRTC and Others v. G. Srinivas
Reddy and Others cited as (2006) 3 SCC 674 at Para 11, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
Section 10 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Buddhadev Maity & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 May, 2010
40.Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision
of this Hon'ble Court in Buddhadev Maity Vs. Union of India
reported as 2010 (4) LLJ 451 for demonstrating the import of
the consultation as envisaged in Section 10 of the Act. Relying
on this interpretation, learned counsel has contended that the
consultation in the case at hand was not effective consultation. It
will be apt at this juncture to quote the relevant para from the
judgment:
Deo Sunder Jha And Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2000
48.Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that such abolition
shall render the whole scheme of DGR as otiose and intent
behind the said scheme shall become ineffectual. It will be
pertinent here to quote the relevant paragraph from the
pronouncement of this Court in the case of Deo Sunder Jha
(supra) which has extensively elaborated on the intent behind
the DGR scheme permitting the employment of contract labour
for performing the activity of security in Public Sector
Enterprises.