Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
M. Venugopal vs The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance ... on 31 January, 1994
In the case of M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 1343, the Apex Court has held that where the service of a probationer terminated without giving any notice in terms of the contract of employment read with Regulation 14 on the ground that he failed to achieve the target stipulated in the contract within the stipulated period, cannot be assailed for want of compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. His termination has been effected under Regulation 14 and cannot be deemed to be retrenchment within Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act being covered under the exemption Clause (bb) to Section 2(oo) validating such termination under a stipulation in that behalf contained in contract of employment.
Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. vs Anil Kumar Mishra And Others Etc. on 19 August, 1992
In the case of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra and Ors. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1638, the Apex Court has held that those persons who are working in the Education Board on ad hoc appointment on posts not sanctioned, no right of regularisation exists for such employees and attributing status of workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act to persons completing 240 days of work does not create right to regularisation.
State Of Rajasthan vs Kunji Raman With Kunji Raman Vs. State Of ... on 17 December, 1996
In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Roman, 1997 (2) AWC 939 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 693, the Apex Court has held that a work-charged establishment differs from a regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme or a 'work' and availability of funds for executing it. So far as employees engaged on work-charged establishments are concerned, not only their recruitment and service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be performed by them are not the same as those of the employees of the regular establishment and thus form two separate and distinct classes.
Lal Mohammad And Ors vs Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd And ... on 4 December, 1998
In the case of Lal Mohammad and Ors. v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 355, the Apex Court has held that the construction of railway line is manufacturing process and workers employed therein are workmen. The Apex Court has held as follows :
Coir Board, Ernakulam, Cochin And Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. And Ors on 4 March, 1998
In the case of Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin and Anr. v. Indira Devi, P.S. and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2801, a two Judges' Bench of the Apex Court has referred the matter to consider whether a larger Bench should be constituted to reconsider its earlier decision in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra).
Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Shri Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao ... on 14 October, 1997
In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni, AIR 1998 SC 327, the Apex Court has held that where a clause in the letter of appointment of the employee on probation clearly stipulated that he could be discharged from service at any time during the period of probation without any notice or without assigning any cause, and he was discharged from service during probation in terms of Regulation 14 (4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, such termination could not be held to be bad on ground of failure of Corporation to give opportunity of hearing to probationer and such termination also would amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, it could not be said that since the requirements of Section 25F of that Act were not complied with, the termination would be bad.