Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
State Of U.P. And Anr. vs Rajendra Singh Butola And Anr. on 8 December, 1999
In State of U. P. v. Rajendra Singh Butola and Anr., 2000 (9) SCC 501 : 2000-I-LLJ-1076, the Supreme Court approved the view taken by the High Court that a daily wager falls within the definition of workman under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and observed as under at p. 1077 of LLJ:
Govindbhai Kanabhai Maru vs N.K. Desai, District Judge on 31 August, 1987
In Govindbhai Kanabhai Maru v. N.K. Desai 1988 Lab. I.C. 505, a learned single Judge of Gujarat High Court held that the definition, of 'workman' under Section 2(s) is couched in sufficiently wide term so as to include part-time employees.
Silver Jubilee Tailoring House And ... vs Chief Inspector Of Shops And ... on 25 September, 1973
In Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments AIR 1974 SC 37 : 1974 (3) SCC 498 : 1973-II-LLJ-495, the Supreme Court considered the question whether a person, who does not work for whole day in the shop falls within the ambit of expression "person employed" appearing in Section 2(14) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1951 and answered in the affirmative by making the following observations:
Shri Birdhichand Sharma vs First Civil Judge Nagpur And Others on 9 December, 1960
"4. A plain reading of the definition of 'workman' does not exclude the part-time workmen for the definition of workmen. Such exclusion cannot be read into it ipso facto except if it is expressly provided or implied that no other interpretation is possible, which is not the case in hand. We find support for our view from the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Birdhichand Sharma v. First Civil Judge. Nagpur, AIR 1961 SC 644 : 1961-II-LLJ-86, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the case found that the workers even doing the job at their home are still workmen. Thus, we are of the considered view that a part-time workman shall fall within the definition if 'workman' and the finding returned- by the Labour Court that a part-time worker is not a workman cannot be sustained, We may hasten to add that nothing has been pointed out that on any principle of equity, justice, good conscience or the technical interpretation of the definition of workman that a part-time workman cannot be termed as workman is unknown to the industrial world.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Simla Devi vs Presiding Officer, Labour Courts And ... on 2 December, 1997
In Simla Devi v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda 1997-I-LLJ-788 (P&H), a Division Bench held that a part-time employee is a workman. The Judgment of the Division Bench, which contains the reasons recorded in support of the aforesaid conclusion is reproduced below at p. 789:
L. Robert D'Souza vs The Executive Engineer Southern ... on 16 February, 1982
In L. Robert D' Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway, AIR 1982 SC 854 : 1982 (1) SCC 645 : 1982-I-LLJ-330 the Supreme Court considered the question whether casual or seasonal labourer can seek invalidation of the termination of his service on the ground of violation of the provisions of Section 25F and held that the employer is bound to comply with the mandatory provisions of that section before terminating the services of such an employee.
1