Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961
Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988
Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953
Section 37 in The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Bihar State Road Transport Corporation vs Orang Bahadur And Anr. on 14 October, 1966
13. We respectfully dissent from a contrary view expressed by the Patna High Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Orang Bahadur, (supra) and from the later Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Amaranth Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, , wherein it was held that the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 was a general Act repugnant to the Workers Act, 1961 which was a special Act, to the extent of the former's applicability to 'motor transport workers'. We are unable to accept the Patna view inasmuch as, in our opinion, under S. 1(4) of the Workers Act, 1961 not only the undertaking must be a 'motor transport undertaking' but it must also employ 'motor transport workers'. If the workers governed by Shops and Establishments Act are expressly excluded from the definition of 'motor transport workers' in S. 2(h) of the Workers Act, 1961, it cannot still be said that the Workers Act, 1961 will apply to a motor transport undertaking employing workers who are covered by the Shops and Establishments Act. It will amount to implying an inconsistency between the State Law and the Central law in spite of a deliberate provision in the Central law for avoiding such an inconsistency. The reasoning of the Patna High Court that if a repugnancy was not implied, the Workers Act, 1961 cannot possibly apply to any undertaking what-so-ever, does not, with great respect, appeal to us. In our view, the Workers Act would apply to all other undertakings employing workers covered by the main part of S. 2(h). The specific exclusion by Parliament of two types of workers from S. 2 (h) shows that Parliament was of the view that such exclusion will not leave the main part of S. 2(h) otiose.
Section 18 in Kerala University Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001
Municipal Council Raipur & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 1969
4. These contentions are resisted by the learned Government Pleader, Sri P. Nagaseshaiah. He contends that under S. 1(4) of the Workers Act, 1961, an order has been issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1624. Home (Lab. II) Department dated October 11, 1968 stating that every employer employing one or more transport workers shall come within the purview of the said Act. The members of the Federation are within the definition of 'motor transport undertaking' as defined in S. 2(g). It is admitted in the counter that these members do not charge any amount from the retail dealers nor do they hire their vehicles for other purposes. Further the amendment to Rule 13A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Transport Taxation Rules, 1963 issued in G.O.Ms. No. 122 dated March 30, 1988 requires proof of registration under the Workers Act, 1961 for securing a licence for the use of the vehicle in a public place upon payment of the tax. Reliance is placed in the counter on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Raipur v. State of M. P., (AIR) 1970 SC 1923 and of the Patna High Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Orang Bahadur (1967-I-LLJ-597)