Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.31 seconds)
M/S Bosch Limited vs Labour Through Karnataka Rakshak on 14 January, 2019 cites

Workmen Of Food Corp. Of India vs Management Food Corp. Of India on 28 November, 2014

12. The learned Senior counsel relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Food Corporation of India vs., Management of Food Corporation of India, reported in AIR 1985 SC 6701 contended that once it is established that workmen have been directly employed under the Management, the subsequent introduction of contract system will not change or alter the position.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gujarat Electricity Board,Thermal ... vs Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors on 9 May, 1995

40. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision in Gujarat Electricity Board Vs., Hind Mazdoor Sabha (1995(II) LLJ 790 and contended that community of interest means the workmen of principal employer who are interested in absorption of contract labour should espouse their case and that if a contractor for any particular period of time did not have a licence that does not confer a permanent employee status to contract labour with the principal employer . On the face of the view taken as above that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the 40 petitioner and respondent workmen for more than one reason, this decision is of no help to the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 172 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2006

41. Further the learned senior counsel placed reliance on a decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd., vs., Union of India & others, reported in 2006(4) L.L.N.651 and contended that entire salary/wages social benefits like P.F. ESI, bonus etc., as protected were paid by the contractor and therefore the respondent workmen cannot be deemed to be the employees of the principal employer. But the evidence in the case is otherwise and on the basis of the material, it is observed as above that such social benefits are deducted by the petitioner from out of the salary of the respondent workmen and therefore this decision is also of no help to the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 152 - S B Sinha - Full Document

L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Consumer Education & Research Centre & ... on 10 May, 1995

In L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre & others (1995) 5 SCC 482, it is observed that social justice is a device to ensure life to be meaningful and liveable with human dignity. The State is obliged to provide to workmen facilities to reach minimum standard of health, economic security and civilized living. The principle laid down by this law requires courts to ensure that a workman who has not been found guilty cannot be deprived of what he is entitled to get. Obviously when a workman has been illegally deprived of his device then that is misconduct on the part of the employer and employer cannot be possibly be permitted to deprive a person of what is due to him. In the case on hand, the petitioner is sought to deprive what the 43 respondent workmen are legally entitled to, which cannot be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 682 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next