Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Shambu Nath Goyal vs Bank Of Baroda And Others on 27 September, 1983
This decision to which Varadarajan, J., was a party did not refer to Shambhu Nath Goyal's case, (supra), though it marks a line of departure from the latter.
Shankar Chakravarti vs Britannia Biscuit Co.Ltd. & Anr on 4 May, 1979
It is also significant to note that in the latter decision the Supreme Court approved the principle laid down in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh 1972 I LLJ 180, and Shankar-Chakravarti's case, (supra).
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Jha vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 21 August, 1984
It is interesting to note that in Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer 1984 II LLJ 459, another Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Chandrachood, C.J., Varadarajan, J., and A.N. Sen, J., had occasion to consider the question once again and deal with the norms prescribed in Shankar Chakravarti's case, (supra), and other cases. The question which arose there was whether the Labour Court had granted permission suo motu. The Supreme Court indicated that in all probability an oral request for permission to adduce evidence was made by the employers to the Labour Court when the hearing of the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) was coming to a close. The Labour Court also stated that both sides produced documents and the management examined witnesses. It was thereafter that the workman filed an application in the Labour Court contending that the management should not be allowed to lead evidence. The Court pointed out that the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the management to lead evidence was not challenged by the workman and that both sides acted upon the order of the Court.
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co vs Ludh Budh Singh on 11 January, 1972
It is also significant to note that in the latter decision the Supreme Court approved the principle laid down in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh 1972 I LLJ 180, and Shankar-Chakravarti's case, (supra).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972
Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution ... vs Burmah Shell Management Staff ... on 12 November, 1970
In Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. Burmah-Shell Management Staff Association (1972) 41 FJR 361 the Supreme Court considered the duties and functions of a Depot Superintendent under the employer and held that his principal duties were managerial in nature and the clerical duties were only incidental. In arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court took note of the circumstances that he was in charge of the stock and his principal duty was to see that stock was properly received, stored and sent out, that he had to get all the jobs done by the workmen and guide them in their work, that he was not the seniormost officer in the depot, that he allocated the work to the men working under him and sanctioned leave to them, that he was empowered to engage casual labour and took review of the position of strength, that he could take decisions regarding overtime work of the staff and had to maintain discipline and report all cases of indiscipline to the head office. He was authorised to spend money within the prescribed limit on behalf of the company and represent the company and the depot in dealing with other authorities.
Arkal Govind Raj Rao vs Ciba Geigy Of India Ltd., Bombay on 6 May, 1985
In Arkal Govind Raj Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd. 1985 II LLJ 401, the Court had to deal with an employee having multiple duties and observed that the test that the Court must employ in order to determine the question is what was the primary, basic or dominant nature of duties for which the person whose status is under enquiry was employed. If he is incidentally asked to do some other work which may not necessarily be in tune with the basic duties, these additional duties cannot change the character and status of the person concerned.