Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.36 seconds)
Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt. ... vs Bhartiya Kamgar Sena And Ors. on 12 October, 2001 cites

General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay vs Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. ... on 8 September, 1993

15. It would also be useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. which has been referred to in both Cipla Ltd. and Kalyani Steels Ltd. In that case, the complaint of the Union was that 21 workmen who were working in one of the canteen of the respondent-company, were not given the service conditions as were available to the other workmen of the company and there was also a threat of termination of their services. It was an admitted position in that case that the workmen were employed by a contractor who was given a contract to run the canteen in question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 43 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Gujarat Electricity Board,Thermal ... vs Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors on 9 May, 1995

"10. ..... ..... The learned Counsel pointed out that in the event we were to hold that it is only in clear cases of undisputed cases the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal under the Act can examine the complaints made thereunder, the whole provision would be rendered otiose and in each of those cases provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 or the Industrial Disputes Act will have to be invoked, we are afraid that this argument cannot be sustained for the fact that even in respect of claims arising under Section 33-C(2) appropriate dispute can be raised in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and that has not been the position in the present case. Nor can we say that even in cases where employer-employee relationship is undisputed or indisputably referring to the history of relationship between the parties, dispute can be settled and not in a case of the present nature where it is clear that the workmen are working under a contract. But it is only a veil and that will have to be lifted to establish the relationship between the parties. That exercise, we are afraid, can also be done by the Industrial Tribunal under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 or under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, we are afraid that the contention advanced very ably by Shri Singhvi on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted. Therefore, we hold that the High Court went far beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act and did not correctly understand the decisions of this Court in Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. (supra) and General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd and Ors. (supra). The correct interpretation of these decisions will lead to the result which we have stated in the course of this order."
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 172 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Anr on 9 January, 2001

In fact, similar was the contention sought to be raised in Vividh Kamgar Sabha's case by saying that such denials can be raised in each and every case to defeat the claim of the employee, the contention was rejected by the Apex Court. Indeed, a question of framing of issue or holding of summary inquiry does not arise at all. Once, it is clear that the Industrial Court under the said Act has no jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to employer-employee relationship, the occasion for framing of issue on the point which is beyond its jurisdiction cannot arise. Once it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court depends upon the fact of existence of employer-employees relationship between the parties which is a jurisdictional fact, which should exist to enable the Industrial Court to assume jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the said Act, in the absence of the same, any attempt on the part of the Industrial Court to adjudicate upon the issue of such relationship would amount to mistake of fact in relation to jurisdiction."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 106 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next