Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.22 seconds)Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Anr on 9 January, 2001
It appears that attention of this Court was not invited to the
judgments in Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd.
(supra) and Cipla Limited (supra) at the time of passing order
dated 23 February 2001. Be that as it may. Since this Court has
directed Industrial Court to conduct enquiry into the issue as to
whether Petitioners are employees/workmen within the meaning of
the Act, in my view, it would be too iniquitous at this stage to dismiss
the present Petition only on the ground of impermissibility of
Industrial Court to decide the issue of existence of employer-employee
relationship and to relegate them to the remedy of seeking reference
7 2001 (2) SCC 381
katkam Page No. 17 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2025 22:31:12 :::
k 18/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc
under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court
for establishment of the relationship. Therefore an unusual course of
action is being adopted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case by examining correctness of finding recorded by the Industrial
Court on the issue of existence of employer-employee relationship.
The State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav on 31 July, 2008
It is apparent that no inconsistency exists and cannot be
worked out in State of Maharashtra v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav as also
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Dhananjay Prabhakar Gokhale(supra) on
one hand and Ballarpur Industries Limited v. Maharashtra Lok Kamgar
Sanghatana (supra) on the other hand. Status of employer, nature of
employment and inherent Constitutional limitation on public employer or
absence of such fetters on any private employer or absolute freedom
available to it to create post/s and recruit, are some of the distinguishing
features which prohibit this exercise.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Mukhyadhikari, Nagar Parishad, ... vs Vishal Vijay Amrutrao on 11 December, 2014
He would also
rely upon judgments of this Court in Mukhyadhikari, Nagar
Parishad Tuljapur vs. Vishal Vijay Amrutrao and others 2, and
Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital and another vs.
Rajashree Laxman Yadav3 .
Cipla Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors on 21 February, 2001
It appears that attention of this Court was not invited to the
judgments in Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd.
(supra) and Cipla Limited (supra) at the time of passing order
dated 23 February 2001. Be that as it may. Since this Court has
directed Industrial Court to conduct enquiry into the issue as to
whether Petitioners are employees/workmen within the meaning of
the Act, in my view, it would be too iniquitous at this stage to dismiss
the present Petition only on the ground of impermissibility of
Industrial Court to decide the issue of existence of employer-employee
relationship and to relegate them to the remedy of seeking reference
7 2001 (2) SCC 381
katkam Page No. 17 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2025 22:31:12 :::
k 18/24 1 wp 1284.02 J as.doc
under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court
for establishment of the relationship. Therefore an unusual course of
action is being adopted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case by examining correctness of finding recorded by the Industrial
Court on the issue of existence of employer-employee relationship.
Sarva Shramik Sangh vs M/S. Indian Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd. ... on 28 October, 2003
21. It appears that while passing order dated 23 February 2001,
this Court did not have benefit of considering the ratio of judgment of
the Apex Court in Cipla Limited (supra) and Indian Smelting &
Refining Co. Ltd. (supra) as well as Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs.
Kalyani Steels Ltd. and another7.
Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt. ... vs Bhartiya Kamgar Sena And Ors. on 12 October, 2001
True it is that in Hindustan
Coca Cola Bottlings S/W (Private) Ltd. vs. Bharatiya Kamgar
Sena and others6, Division Bench of this Court has held that
existence of employer-employee relationship at some point of time
would confer jurisdiction on Industrial Court to entertain complaint
of unfair labour practice, such is not the case here. At no point of time
Respondents have ever acknowledged existence of employer-employee
relationship. This is not the case where Petitioners were initially
treated as employees and were later converted as mere invitees as
Visiting Editors. Right since inception, the Respondent-Board always
treated Petitioners as mere invitees to volunteer as Visiting Editors.
In my view therefore, it was impermissible for Industrial Court to
conduct an enquiry into employer-employee relationship.
Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (Bilt ... vs Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatana And ... on 2 March, 2016
It is apparent that no inconsistency exists and cannot be
worked out in State of Maharashtra v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav as also
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Dhananjay Prabhakar Gokhale(supra) on
one hand and Ballarpur Industries Limited v. Maharashtra Lok Kamgar
Sanghatana (supra) on the other hand. Status of employer, nature of
employment and inherent Constitutional limitation on public employer or
absence of such fetters on any private employer or absolute freedom
available to it to create post/s and recruit, are some of the distinguishing
features which prohibit this exercise.