Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ... vs Shramik Sena And Ors on 4 August, 1999
In INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD. & ANOTHER Vs. SHRAMIK
SENA & OTHERS (1999-II-LLJ-696), on the facts, the Supreme Court found that
the persons mentioned in the writ petition were working in the canteen in the
factory and the Management was treating them as persons employed on contract
basis through the contractor. The Court found that the factory was governed
by the Factories Act, 1948. It was held that by virtue of Section 46 of the
Factories Act, the workmen working in the canteen ipso facto became the
regular workers of the Management. The High Court held that the employees
were entitled to be absorbed in the employment of the factory. The Supreme
Court, agreeing with the findings of the High Court, dismissed the appeal of
the Management and held that the canteen run in the establishment was a
statutory canteen and that the workmen in the canteen were in fact workmen of
the appellant Management. In arriving at the conclusion, the Supreme Court
took note of the fact that the canteen had been there since the inception of
the factory and that the workmen have been employed for long number of years
despite the change of the contractors and that the premises, furniture,
fixtures, fuel, electricity, etc., were provided for by the Management. It
was also noticed that the supervision and control of the canteen was exercised
by an officer authorised by the Management. It is pertinent to bear in mind
that the facts of this writ petition also correspond to the said findings.
The Apprentices Act, 1961
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.M.R. Khan And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 27 February, 1990
10. The respondent further states that the Supreme Court in M.M.R.
KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1990 SC 937), has held that the workers engaged
in the statutory canteens as well as engaged in non-statutory canteens in
Railway Establishment are railway employees and are entitled to be treated as
such. It is further stated that as far as the decision of the Bombay High
Court was concerned, it was held that the V Pay Commission's recommendations
were applicable only to the canteen workers under the Central Government and
not to the canteen employees of major ports. The canteens are not being run
by the Trust as assumed by the petitioner, but was being run by the employees
by electing themselves as Committee Members like any other cooperative
society.
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd vs Karri Pothuraju & Ors on 13 August, 2003
In NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION Vs. KARRI POTHURAJU AND
OTHERS (2003-III-LLJ 567), the Supreme Court held that the Management itself
is under an obligation under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1 948, to run
the canteen and that it would be too late in the day to contend that the
workers of the canteen were engaged through contractors and they were not
performing any work incidental to the activities of the establishment.
Tuticorin Port Trust Democratic vs Tuticorin Port Trust on 17 June, 2004
29. I had an occasion to deal with W.P.No.10907 of 1998 (Order dated
17.6.2004) - (TUTICORIN PORT TRUST DEMOCRATIC STAFF UNION Vs. TUTICORIN PORT
TRUST) in which also, the very same issues arose for consideration. After
considering the background in which the canteen came to be established and the
manner of control exercised by the Tuticorin Port Trust, the prayer of the
petitioner Union was accepted and the writ petition was allowed, holding that
the employees who have been made permanent by the Management after 18.8.1995
should also be absorbed and be made permanent employees of the Port Trust.
Parimal Chandra Raha & Ors vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 29 March, 1995
16. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
PARIMAL CHANDRA RAHA Vs, L.I.C. OF INDIA (AIR 1995 SC 1666) and to the
classification adopted by the Supreme Court for arriving at the conclusion as
to whether the employees of the canteen can be treated as part of the main
establishment. Reference was also made to the observation that the obligation
to provide a canteen has to be distinguished from the obligation to provide
facilities to run the canteen. The only fact that facilities were provided by
the Port Trust for running the canteen cannot make the canteen as part of the
establishment.