Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)
Maheshwar Singh vs M/S.Indomag Steel Technology Ltd. on 19 April, 2010 cites

Ramesh S/O. Ramarao Wase vs The Commissioner, Revenue Division on 3 October, 1994

5. Refuting the submissions of counsel for the respondent, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh V. The Commissioner, Revenue Division, Amravati (Supra) was dealing with an employee who was employed as Class-II, Gazetted Officer and a sectional Engineer in whose case the court held that such a category of a person cannot be covered within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and hence does not apply to the facts of the case at hand.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Arkal Govind Raj Rao vs Ciba Geigy Of India Ltd., Bombay on 6 May, 1985

4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was essentially discharging the duties of an independent nature of a draftsman where he alone was taking decision to prepare highly specialized and sophisticated engineering drawings based on his own independent skill and therefore, such a person cannot fall in the category of 'workman' within the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court cited by the counsel for the petitioner in Arkal Govind Raj Rao (Supra), would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case the W.P.(C) No. 12886/2006 Page 3 of 12 Apex Court while dealing with a case of stenographer-cum- accountant held that the court should find out the primary and basic duties assigned to a particular job and the additional duties would not change the character and status of a person. Counsel further submitted that so far the facts of the present case are concerned, the primary and basic duties of the draftsman itself are of a highly sophisticated nature where the person uses his own independent talent in preparing the drafts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 118 - D A Desai - Full Document

Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution ... vs Burmah Shell Management Staff ... on 12 November, 1970

Counsel distinguishing the case of Burmah Shell Storage & Distribution Company of W.P.(C) No. 12886/2006 Page 5 of 12 India Ltd.(Supra) submitted that there the Apex Court was dealing with the nature of duties as was assigned to the Junior Managing Staff working in the Burmah Shell Company and after taking into consideration the nature of duties being performed by the said staff the Apex Court came to the conclusion that such employees were not held to be workmen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 197 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Bharat Bhawan Trust vs Bharat Bhawan Artists Assocation & Anr on 22 August, 2001

10. Taking the aforesaid facts into consideration, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was employed with the respondent management as draftsman. The duties of a draftsman are certainly skilled and technical in nature. A person can be said to be employed in a technical capacity if he is, in the first place, a skilled person. He must have enough dexterity to discharge the work assigned to him with speed and accuracy. Such a skillful person with the technical expertise has to use his judgment and has to find out whether a particular work can be done in a particular manner or not. A draftsman who has the technical background and expertise may be after doing some technical course or with the background of his experience has to apply his mind to prepare certain plans and designs and to that extent he may have originality in his ideas and thoughts but simply W.P.(C) No. 12886/2006 Page 9 of 12 because of the fact that one with technical expertise and knowledge prepares some plans and designs, the same by itself will not take him from the purview of definition of the workman as envisaged under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, more particularly when his ideas or work is subject to the final decision of the superior authorities. Hence, under no circumstances the job of draftsman can be equated with that of artists as discussed in Bharat Bhawan Trust Vs. Bharat Bhawan Artists Assn. (2001) 7 SCC 630 (Supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1