Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.40 seconds)The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001
50.We also uphold the directions issued by the learned single Judge in
W.P.No.6485 of 2015. The decision to uphold the direction issued falls from the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited
and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others reported in (2001) 7
SCC 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in clear terms held as follows:-
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd vs Uoi And Ors on 4 December, 2014
46.This said judgment of the Delhi High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2011) 12 SCC 449 (Delhi International
Airport Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others). In the present case also, the
Board has in detail examined the issue in its proper perspective and had given elaborate
reasons even as early as in the year 2005 as to why there should be a prohibition of
31/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
employment of contract labour. The Airport Authority of India has been successful in
delaying the inevitable by at least a decade by seeking reconsideration by the Board,
which was ultimately rejected and the Board reiterated its decision in 2013. The
notification came after a year in November, 2014. Even after a period of 8 years, no
regular appointment has been made by the Airport Authority of India to the job of trolley
retrievals.
Section 2 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
M/S Rahman Industries Pvt.Ltd vs State Of Up And Ors on 18 January, 2016
20.He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rahman Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported
in (2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 420 to submit that the Government had to examine
independently and satisfy itself. It cannot close its eyes and accept the recommendations
of the Board as it has done in issuing the notification. He would further submit that
when a section of trolley workers are raising a dispute as to the nature of the contract,
viz., contract being sham and nominal then the same could not be decided by this Court.
He would also submit that when such a question has been raised by a section of workers
before conclusion of the same by an appropriate authority, the Central Government is
barred from issuing the notification prohibiting the contract labour, as it would foreclose
12/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the issue raised by a section of workers, as it would lead to a presumption that the
contracts are genuine.
Section 12 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
M/S.Rashitriya ... vs General Employees Association . on 12 November, 2014
18.He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited Vs. General Employees’ Association
and others reported in (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 273 in support of the aforesaid
11/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contention. Hence, he would persuade us to interfere with the impugned judgment
upholding the notification issued by the Central Government prohibiting engagement of
contract labour and consequently to set aside the notification issued by the Central
Government.