Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Mahadeo Bhau Khilare (Mane) & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 May, 2007
In Mahadeo Bhau Khilare (Mane) (supra) a distinction was made between
an irregular appointment and an illegal appointment. It was held that appointments
made without following the statutory rules were unconstitutional and that before a
person can claim regularization in the service of the State, he must be in the
service of the State; without being in service, the question of regularization did not
arise.
Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009
The Supreme Court in Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana (supra)
held that the purpose of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 with which it was concerned in
that case was to provide for prevention of unfair labour practices and the industrial
and the labour courts were empowered, if unfair labour practice is proved, to
W.P.(C) 6293/2001 Page 5 of 8
declare that unfair labour practice and direct the person indulging in the same, to
cease and desist from such unfair labour practice and take such affirmative action
including payment of reasonable compensation to the employee affected by the
unfair labour practice.
R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr on 8 December, 1971
In R.N.
Nanjundappa (supra) the Supreme Court held that if the appointment itself is in
infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution,
illegality cannot be regularized; ratification or regularization is possible of an act
which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some
non-compliance with procedure or manner, which does not go to the root of the
appointment; regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. It was
held that to accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of
appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the
rules.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs N.K. Gupta on 2 July, 2008
The counsel for the respondent also relies on MCD Vs. N. Kumar
(144) 2007 DLT 493 but which does not consider the aforesaid aspects and thus
cannot come to the rescue of the respondent.
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
12. In the present case the petitioner is a nationalized company. It is the case of
the respondent himself that at the relevant time the branch of the petitioner at
Morena, Madhya Pradesh had been newly set up. In the circumstances, the action
of the petitioner of engaging the respondent temporarily till it could make
recruitment in accordance with its rules & regulations cannot be said to be an
unfair labour practice. It is also not as if such casual appointment/arrangement was
continued for years together as is generally found to be the case in all judgments
where such reliefs are granted. Here, the engagement exceeds the statutory period
of 240 days by merely 4 days. The respondent himself admits that the petitioner
thereafter had conducted test for regular appointments and in which he also
appeared though remaining unsuccessful. Thus by no stretch of imagination can an
element of unfairness be attributed to the petitioner. The temporary, casual, daily
rated appointment of the respondent otherwise was illegal and as per the law in
Umadevi case, the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Post Master General, Kolkata & Ors vs Tutu Das (Dutta) on 2 May, 2007
In Tutu Das (supra) it was held that that the completion of 240 days of
continuous service in a year would be attracted only in a case where retrenchment
has been effected without complying with the provisions contained in Section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, but would not be relevant for regularization of
service.
1