Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
S. Sivakumar And Ors. vs The Deputy Inspector Of Factories, Div. ... on 8 September, 2006
47 This view though harsh to the workmen, but does not take away the right as the workman has the remedy to challenge the termination under the Industrial Dispute Act, and the learned Labour Court while adjudicating the dispute can always take into consideration the statutory right available to workmen under Sec.3 to determine whether terminations were justified or not and whether it was actuated with malafide to deny the right of permanent status, or whether it amounts to unfair Labour practice, but the respondent No.1 cannot declare or grant permanent status to a workman who ceased to be an employee. It would amount to exercise of jurisdiction with respect to a dispute pending before the learned Labour Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that reading of the judgment of this Court in case of S.Sivakumar and others vs. Deputy Inspector of Factories, Chennai and another (supra) means that status of Master and servant is to be seen on the date of application can be accepted, as it is well settled that judgment is a precedent on a point actually decided and not but could be inferred therefrom.The question before the Court was, as to whether ex-employer can invoke jurisdiction under section 3 of the Act which was answered against the employee. Otherwise also reading of section 3 shows that permanent status can be declared qua the workman who is in employment on the date of passing of order.
Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Tirumangalam And ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 5 February, 1985
24 The reliance was also placed on the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Metal Powder Co. Ltd. Tirumangalam and another Vs The State of Tamil Nadu and another (1985-II L.L.J. 376) wherein it was held that apprentice or badli workers could not be included in the workmen as referred to Sec.3(1) and 3(2) of the Act and therefore will not be entitled to benefit.
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
M/S Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd vs Nashik Workers Union & Ors on 16 July, 2003
In Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers' Union case, cited supra, the workmen who had been employed in the Direct Purchase Centres of the respondent corporation and had rendered more than 480 days of service claimed that they should be confirmed. The respondent corporation refused to confirm them. The workmen filed a writ petition for a mandamus that the provisions of the said Act should be implemented and employees of Direct Purchase Centres who had rendered more than 480 days of service, should be conferred the status of permanent employee. The learned single Judge while disposing of the writ petition directed the employees to approach the Inspector of Labour for determination of the question whether they satisfied the conditions and were entitled to be declared as permanent workers. In the inquiry conducted by the Inspector of Labour it was held that the establishment was not of a seasonal character and the work performed by the concerned workmen was not intermittent. It was not held that the workmen fulfilled the criteria laid down under the Act and were therefore entitled to be made permanent. Challenging the finding of the Inspector of Labour, writ petitions were filed.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 [Entire Act]
Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S.Ltd vs Vinod Kumar Sharma Dead By Lrs & Ors on 1 September, 2011
34 The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak sahakaris Ltd. Vs Vinod Kumar Sharma (dead Lrs. & others) (Civil Appeal No.2585 of 2006), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that resorting to subterfuge to show the workman as the employees of the contractor to avoid the liability under the various labour statutes by the employers should be brought to an end. This judgment again has no relevance to the case in hand, as the workmen were not treated to be a contract employee.