Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
S.Manikandan vs The Management on 2 April, 2026 cites

Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002

(iii) Once they are workmen, then when a dispute raised by the primary trade union is pending adjudication and the workmen were also involved in the said dispute, without following the mandate under Section 33 of the ID Act, in obtaining the prior permission or approval as the case may be from the Industrial Tribunal, when the impugned punishment order is passed dismissing them from service, then as per the dictum of the Constitution Bench Judgment in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Vs. Ramgopal Sharma and Others1, the same is void ab initio. Once the punishment is void ab initio, then it is further settled law that no dispute need be raised to set aside the punishment and therefore, the application for computation has rightly been filed under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have allowed the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1030 - S V Patil - Full Document

Raj. State Road Transport Corp., & Anr vs Satya Prakash & Anr on 22 November, 2013

The learned counsel alternatively contends that, even for a violation of Section 33 of the ID Act, when there is a remedy to file a complaint under Section 33- A, the wording of Section 33 -A indicates that the merits of the order must also be considered in such complaints. Consequently, the action of workmen in directly approaching the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act cannot be accepted. While it is true that in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., (cited supra) it was held to be null and void, a careful review of subsequent judgments indicates that the evolving legal principle is that, for a violation of Section 33, filing a complaint under Section 33-A is the proper remedy, rather than under Section 33-C(2). To support his arguments, the learned counsel relies on the following judgments, a. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Satya Prakash3, b. Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited Vs. S.Balakrishnan4, c. Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and 3 (2013) 9 SCC 232 4 (2016) 12 SCC 221 __________ Page No.8 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3879 and 3882 of 2024 Another5, d. Managing Director, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shivasharanappa6 E.Consideration and Findings:
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 0 - Cited by 92 - G Mathur - Full Document

Management Of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. vs S.Balakrishnan on 10 February, 2016

The learned counsel alternatively contends that, even for a violation of Section 33 of the ID Act, when there is a remedy to file a complaint under Section 33- A, the wording of Section 33 -A indicates that the merits of the order must also be considered in such complaints. Consequently, the action of workmen in directly approaching the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act cannot be accepted. While it is true that in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., (cited supra) it was held to be null and void, a careful review of subsequent judgments indicates that the evolving legal principle is that, for a violation of Section 33, filing a complaint under Section 33-A is the proper remedy, rather than under Section 33-C(2). To support his arguments, the learned counsel relies on the following judgments, a. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Satya Prakash3, b. Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited Vs. S.Balakrishnan4, c. Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and 3 (2013) 9 SCC 232 4 (2016) 12 SCC 221 __________ Page No.8 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3879 and 3882 of 2024 Another5, d. Managing Director, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shivasharanappa6 E.Consideration and Findings:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

M/S Bombay Chemical Industries vs Deputy Labour Commissioner on 4 February, 2022

The learned counsel alternatively contends that, even for a violation of Section 33 of the ID Act, when there is a remedy to file a complaint under Section 33- A, the wording of Section 33 -A indicates that the merits of the order must also be considered in such complaints. Consequently, the action of workmen in directly approaching the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act cannot be accepted. While it is true that in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., (cited supra) it was held to be null and void, a careful review of subsequent judgments indicates that the evolving legal principle is that, for a violation of Section 33, filing a complaint under Section 33-A is the proper remedy, rather than under Section 33-C(2). To support his arguments, the learned counsel relies on the following judgments, a. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Satya Prakash3, b. Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited Vs. S.Balakrishnan4, c. Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and 3 (2013) 9 SCC 232 4 (2016) 12 SCC 221 __________ Page No.8 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3879 and 3882 of 2024 Another5, d. Managing Director, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shivasharanappa6 E.Consideration and Findings:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 40 - M R Shah - Full Document

S.K. Maini vs Carona Sahu Co. Ltd on 8 March, 1994

5.4. Before deciding the other issues, the first step is to consider whether the petitioners are workmen within the definition under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. At the outset, there can be no doubt about the legal principles that designation alone is not conclusive. Instead, the primary factor is the nature of the employees’ day-to-day duties. After considering the predominant aspect of day-to-day activities, if the employee is only supervisory and earning beyond the threshold pay, or if they mainly perform managerial functions, they will be excluded from the definition. It is also clear that this is a question of fact to be decided on the specific evidence of each case. No rigid formula or universal rule can be applied universally. A useful reference in this regard is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.K.Maini Vs. Caroa Sahu Company __________ Page No.11 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3879 and 3882 of 2024 Limited and others7 5.5. Furthermore, regarding the determinative factor, which is whether the main duty is supervisory or not, supervision is understood to mean directing and controlling the persons working under the employee. Mere power to check or inspect alone does not constitute a supervisory role. It inherently presupposes the existence of subordinates, authority to assign work, duty rosters, issuing instructions, correcting work, granting or recommending leave, appraising or initiating performance reviews, suggesting disciplinary actions, etc. Functional powers such as signing, certifying work completion, countersigning registers, and granting quality clearances, when combined with directing staff, cannot be considered merely ministerial or check-related; rather, they amount to supervisory work.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 84 - G N Ray - Full Document
1   2 Next