Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.66 seconds)
Navi Mumbai Mahanagarpalika ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 30 January, 2026 cites

State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010

We are in agreement with Mr. Bapat who submit that even if assuming that the window that has been opened in case of M.L.Kesari (supra) is extended to the petitioner, they have not completed 10 years of service as on the cut-off date i.e. 10.04.2016, and therefore, they cannot seek the benefit of the relaxation of Paragraph 53 as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra). We see substance in the said submission of Mr. Bapat in as much as though we can depict the manner of the appointment of the petitioner on contractual basis since 2012. However, the one time measure as has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner and we do not intend to extend the benefits to the petitioner in the manner in which it is sought to be done by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that since they have now completed 10 years of service, they can be regularized.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1834 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

We are in agreement with Mr. Bapat who submit that even if assuming that the window that has been opened in case of M.L.Kesari (supra) is extended to the petitioner, they have not completed 10 years of service as on the cut-off date i.e. 10.04.2016, and therefore, they cannot seek the benefit of the relaxation of Paragraph 53 as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra). We see substance in the said submission of Mr. Bapat in as much as though we can depict the manner of the appointment of the petitioner on contractual basis since 2012. However, the one time measure as has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner and we do not intend to extend the benefits to the petitioner in the manner in which it is sought to be done by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that since they have now completed 10 years of service, they can be regularized.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996

103. While this was the state of law in regard to the contract labour, the issue of 2 (1997) 9 SCC 377 Page 5 of 11 30 January 2026 Kiran Kawre ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 21:55:14 ::: 3-WP-7301-2012.DOC automatic absorption of the contract labour came up before a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Air India case [(1997) 9 SCC 377 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1344] . The Court held: (1) though there is no express provision in the CLRA Act for absorption of the contract labour when engagement of contract labour stood prohibited on publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, from that moment the principal employer cannot continue contract labour and direct relationship gets established between the workmen and the principal employer; (2) the Act did not intend to denude the contract labour of their source of livelihood and means of development by throwing them out from employment; and (3) in a proper case the court as sentinel on the qui vive is required to direct the appropriate authority to submit a report and if the finding is that the workmen were engaged in violation of the provisions of the Act or were continued as contract labour despite prohibition of the contract labour under Section 10(1), the High Court has a constitutional duty to enforce the law and grant them appropriate relief of absorption in the employment of the principal employer. Justice Majmudar, in his concurring judgment, put it on the ground that when on the fulfilment of the requisite conditions, the contract labour is abolished under Section 10(1), the intermediary contractor vanishes and along with him vanishes the term "principal employer" and once the intermediary contractor goes the term "principal" also goes with it; out of the tripartite contractual scenario, only two parties remain, the beneficiaries of the abolition of the erstwhile contract labour system i.e. the workmen on the one hand and the employer on the other, who is no longer their principal employer but necessarily becomes a direct employer for erstwhile contract labourers. The learned Judge also held that in the provision of Section 10 there is implicit legislative intent that on abolition of the contract labour system, the erstwhile contract workmen would become direct employees of the employer in whose establishment they were earlier working and were enjoying all the regulatory facilities under Chapter V. in that very establishment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 118 - Cited by 420 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next