Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)
M/S Ircon International Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 July, 2011 cites

Lal Mohammad & Ors vs Indian Railway Construction Co.Ltd. & ... on 11 January, 2007

12. The counsel for the respondent workmen has on the contrary contended that if the respondent workmen are found to be employees of the Project then they would be governed by Section 25FFF(2) but their contention is that they are employees not of the Project but of the petitioner Company and were working in one of the Projects of the petitioner Company. He has further argued that it has never been the case of the respondent workmen that they were recruited only for a particular Project. He has argued that each of the respondent workmen is a skilled workman and the Recruitment Rules relied upon by the petitioner relate to executive posts while the rules applicable are those for non executive posts and as per which they became entitled to absorption after completion of five years of employment and which they had. He has further contended that the contracts of appointment placed by the petitioner before this Court and relied upon as aforesaid did not form part of the record of the Industrial Adjudicator and thus cannot be considered. He has further contended that W.P.(C) No.10941/2004 Page 15 of 26 none of the admissions attributed to the respondent workmen and as noticed in para 10 hereinabove are admissions of being Project employees but only amount to admissions of working in the Project. He claims that the respondent workmen are entitled to Section 25F protection and the question for determination was whether the respondent workmen were employees of the petitioner Company or of the Project and which has not been determined either by the Industrial Adjudicator at Delhi or by the Industrial Tribunal at Agra. He has further contended that in the judgment Lal Mohammad Vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 230 relied upon by the petitioner, there was a finding of the employees therein being employees of the Project and which is not the case here. He has further contended that some of the respondent workmen had been transferred and which was one of the disputes referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Agra; there could be no question of Project employees being transferred and the same was also indicative of the respondent workmen being the employees of the petitioner Company and not of the Project. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 4th August, 2005 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 19 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Bharat Barrel & Drum ... vs Bharat Barrel Employees Union on 9 April, 1987

17. The Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Employees Union (1987) 2 SCC 591 held that rule of res judicata applies to proceedings before the Industrial Tribunals also. It was held that any legislation regulating the relation between the Capital and the Labour, as the Industrial Disputes Act is, has two objects in view - it seeks to ensure to the workmen fair returns for their labour, it also seeks to prevent disputes between employer and employees, so that production might not be adversely affected and the larger interests of the society might not suffer. It was held that to hold that the rule of res judicata does not apply to industrial disputes would rather than bringing in industrial peace, make the awards mere truces giving only breathing time before resuming hostile action with renewed vigour.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 13 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Shri Balley vs M.C.D. & Ors on 8 March, 2010

19. The said action dated 3rd June, 1998 was post the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Agra and thus could not possibly be subject thereof. Even otherwise, merely because the respondent workmen had been held by the Industrial Tribunal, Agra to be employees of the Mathura Project and ad- hoc and not entitled to absorption in any other Project of the petitioner Company, would not deprive the respondent workmen from raising a dispute as to their termination. It is settled position in law (see Balley Vs. MCD ILR (2010) VI Delhi 44 discussing the case law on the subject) that the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act apply to both the regular as well as the temporary or ad-hoc employees if they have completed more than 240 days of employment and which the respondent workmen in the instant case had.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Management Of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs The Workmen & Ors on 12 January, 1973

11. The senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the aforesaid material on record and inspite of the Industrial Adjudicator noticing the judgment of the Apex Court in Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. The Workmen (1973) 3 SCC 564, the Industrial Adjudicator has held to the contrary, making the award perverse and liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the respondent workmen before this Court have for the first time made out a new case of being employees of the petitioner Company and not of the Project.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 70 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document
1   2 Next