Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.71 seconds)
International Air Cargo Workers Union vs International Airport Authority Of ... on 16 June, 2014 cites

Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996

14. According to the directions of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6126 of 1995 which was restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.2244 of 2002, (i) the Central Government and the Advisory Board constituted under The Contract Labour [Regulation and Abolition] Act, 1970 [ in short, "the CLRA Act" ] should consider whether the deployment of contract labour in regard to packing, loading and unloading in IAAI Madras Cargo Complex should be abolished and take appropriate decision thereon; (ii) Till such decision was taken, the workers concerned should be continued notwithstanding the interruption in their employment as contract labour from 1994 to the date of that order (15.12.1997), as contract labour on the terms and conditions that were in force between IAAI and the society prior to 1994. As per the direction No.(iii), if once the Central Government issues a notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, prohibiting the contract labour in regard to loading and unloading and packing in the Cargo Complex all those who had worked as contract labour under the contract between the society and the IAAI up to the numbers specified in the contract shall be absorbed in the IAAI as was directed by this court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union [1997 (9) SCC 377].
Supreme Court of India Cites 118 - Cited by 420 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors on 12 August, 2013

Factually, the employee who was wrongfully terminated from service in Deepali Gundu Surwase case was a permanent employee under the respondent therein. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterating the settled principle of law, said that when the termination is wrongful, such employee would be entitled for back wages. But, in the case on hand, the workers in question are not at all the employees of IAAI. They are only contract labours. The arrangement that they should be engaged by IAAI is purely interim only until a decision is taken by the Central Government under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. Their continued engagement is in pursuant to the order of this court by way of interim measure. So, they cannot claim the benefits as though they are the directed employees of IAAI. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As I have already stated, applying the principle of "no-work, no-pay, I am constrained to deny the relief of back wages to the contract labours.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 1432 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1