Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
M.M.R. Khan And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 27 February, 1990
"Counsel forthe appellant Mr. Salve submitted that propositions Nos. 3 and 4 contained in paragraph 27 of the judgment are very wide and require reconsideration and appropriate modification, whereas Mr. Tarkunde, Counsel for respondents submitted that propositions Nos. 3 and 4 lay down the law correctly. It is unnecessary, on the facts of this case, to consider to what extent propositions Nos. 3 and 4 require to be clarified or modified, since in this case the Tribunal has proceeded only on the basis that the instant case clearly falls within the ratio laid down by this Court in M.M.R. Khan's case (supra), which we have held is a totally wrong perspective".
Parimal Chandra Raha & Ors vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 29 March, 1995
"In view of the law laid down by this Court in Parimal Chandra Rah a and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. (supra), there is no scope to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court".
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dena Nath And Ors vs National Fertilizers Ltd. And Ors on 22 November, 1991
Learned single Judge has found in the judgment of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Workers' Association v. Union of India, (1985-I-LLJ-428) a principle which could, according to her, meet all that is observed by the Supreme Court in the cases of M.M.R. Khan, (supra), Dena Nath, (supra) and Parimal Chandra Raha, (supra) which essentially has proceeded on the footing that all such establishments of a factory in which contract labour are engaged, unless contract labour is abolished, such employees cannot claim any parity with the regular employees of the factory. We do not propose to say much on the subject of the contract labour, but propose to deal with the nature of the canteen to find out whether there is any justification in the plea of the first respondent that it has acted in the interest of the workers in providing a canteen and has committed nothing wrong in handing over the Management of the canteen to a contractor, who in turn has engaged employees to work in the canteen. Section 46 of the Factories Act provides as follows :
1