Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
U.P. State Electricity Board vs Ashok Kumar Shukla And Anr. on 31 March, 2003
In the case of the U. P. State Electricity Board v. Ashok Kumar Shukla (supra), this Court held that if a person has been engaged for a period of three years and was getting stipend and did not raise an issue during the period of his engagement, he has acquiesced and cannot be permitted to raise any dispute regarding his status and is disentitled for any relief before the labour court.
Shukla Manseta Industries Pvt. Ltd vs The Workmen Employed Under It on 2 August, 1977
(iii) M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. v. Workmen Employed represented by Firestone Tyre Employees' Union, AIR 1981 SC 1626.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs Labour Court And Ors. on 20 May, 1994
22. In the case of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3574 of 1997, U. P. State Electricity Board, Kanpur, decided on 13th March, 1997 (supra), this Court followed the decision given in the case of the U. P. State Spinning Mills Limited (supra), and has held that it is not all apprentice who will be workmen under the Act but only those apprentices who are employed in an industry for training in accordance with the scheme prepared by the State Government under Section 2 (a) of the Act.
Workmen Of The Food Corporation Of Indla vs M/S. Food Corporation Of India on 28 February, 1985
In the case of the Food Corporation of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd vs State Of Saurashtra on 23 November, 1956
In the case of Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :