Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.42 seconds)Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs The Presiding Officer, Central ... on 8 July, 1988
and Ors. etc JT 1996(11) SC 170. Even the observations of Hon'ble
Patna High Court in Employers in Relation to... Vs. Presiding
Officer, Central 1999 (47) BLJR 2105 were based on the judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs.
United Labour Unions and Ors. etc JT 1996(11) SC 170 and in
Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board's case (Supra).
Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996
53. It is significant to note in this regard that the observation of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs.
United Labour Unions and Ors. etc JT 1996(11) SC 170, relied upon
in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board's case (Supra) have
been specifically overruled by a larger bench of Hon'ble of Supreme
Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. National Union
Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001)7 SCC 1.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001
As regards extent of control and supervision, we
have already taken note of the observations in
Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal
Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1
SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] ,
International Airport Authority of India case
[International Airport Authority of India v.
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
M/S Icici Prudential Asset Management ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 25 August, 2011
50. Thus, in the absence of any reference on the aspect of the alleged
contracts between management no. 1 and 2 to 4 being sham and
bogus, this Court cannot go into the aforesaid question. A bare perusal
of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ICIC Prudential Asset
Management Company Ltd (M/s) v. Union of India 2012 LLR 245
and judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in M/s Prabha
Jitendra Singh v. BSES & Ors.
Section 23 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2010 (In Re: Sugar ... vs 2.2.1 National Federation Of ... on 30 November, 2011
15. However, according to management no. 3, it had been able to
keep the promise only in respect of 32 workers by procuring job for
them, whereas, some of the workers did not agree to join on the
ground that the job was not being offered with management no. 1.
Management no. 3 has undertaken to give jobs to all the remaining
workers while denying all the allegations regarding adoption of any
unfair labour practice. Management no. 3 has also denied the
allegations of the workman that he was not provided with any
appointment letter or other statutory benefits. It is alleged by
management no. 3 that the workman was duly issued the appointment
letter, was paid his wages regularly and PF and ESI deductions were
duly made by management no. 3 from his salary. Management no. 3
has denied the claim of the workman that it had terminated the
services of the workman in violation of provisions of Section 25F, G
Jitendra Singh v. BSES & Ors.