Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (3.04 seconds)
Abbott India Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2017 cites

The Management Of The Syndicate Bank ... vs The Workmen on 4 November, 1965

7. The grounds raised by the employee was that since he had taken membership of the Union in 2015, therefore, to victimize him, the transfer order has been passed. Learned Writ Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Management of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. vs. the Workmen reported in AIR 1966 SC 1283, wherein it has been held that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer, if found to be made for the malafide reasons or for some ulterior purpose like punishing an employee for his trade union activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 37 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Management, Dainik Naveen Duniya vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 10 July, 1990

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submit that the provisions of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only be attracted, if there is a violation of Section 33 of the Act. He has also drawn our attention to the Single Bench decision in the case of President vs. Director reported in 2015-IV-LLJ 189 (MP) and the law laid down by the Division Bench of Principal Seat in the case of Management, Dainik Naveen Duniya vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another reported in 1991 MPLJ 114 and submitted that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief. Learned Writ Court without considering the aforesaid, dismissed the writ petition and prayed that the appeal be allowed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 2 November, 2007

In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595, the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, the decision of this Court in the case of Jyoti Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through Sanjay vs. Baljeet Singh passed in W. A. No.385/2017, Trustees of H. C. Dhanda, Trust through Jogesh Dhanda vs. State of M. P. & others decided on 04.09.2017 in W. A. No.265/2017 and Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the case of Shailendra Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another (W.A. No.286/2017), present writ appeal is not maintainable. On merit, he has submitted that the appellant pressurized the respondent No.3 to increase sales by unethical means and also threatened him for transfer and other disciplinary action in case of not abiding the company's unethical policies. Therefore, just to protect his right, respondent No.3 has joined respondent No.2 and made a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 02.03.2016 passed an order against the appellants not to change any service condition of the respondent No.3. The company has annoyed and also with malafide intentions issued a transfer order transferring the respondent No.3's service from Indore to Shri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) so that he could not have proceeded his complaint with the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Indore against the company.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 50 - D Misra - Full Document

Dr. Jaidev Siddha And Ors. vs Jaiprakash Siddha And Ors. on 19 July, 2007

In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595, the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, the decision of this Court in the case of Jyoti Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through Sanjay vs. Baljeet Singh passed in W. A. No.385/2017, Trustees of H. C. Dhanda, Trust through Jogesh Dhanda vs. State of M. P. & others decided on 04.09.2017 in W. A. No.265/2017 and Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the case of Shailendra Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another (W.A. No.286/2017), present writ appeal is not maintainable. On merit, he has submitted that the appellant pressurized the respondent No.3 to increase sales by unethical means and also threatened him for transfer and other disciplinary action in case of not abiding the company's unethical policies. Therefore, just to protect his right, respondent No.3 has joined respondent No.2 and made a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 02.03.2016 passed an order against the appellants not to change any service condition of the respondent No.3. The company has annoyed and also with malafide intentions issued a transfer order transferring the respondent No.3's service from Indore to Shri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) so that he could not have proceeded his complaint with the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Indore against the company.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc vs Vikram Cement Etc on 8 July, 2008

In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595, the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, the decision of this Court in the case of Jyoti Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through Sanjay vs. Baljeet Singh passed in W. A. No.385/2017, Trustees of H. C. Dhanda, Trust through Jogesh Dhanda vs. State of M. P. & others decided on 04.09.2017 in W. A. No.265/2017 and Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the case of Shailendra Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another (W.A. No.286/2017), present writ appeal is not maintainable. On merit, he has submitted that the appellant pressurized the respondent No.3 to increase sales by unethical means and also threatened him for transfer and other disciplinary action in case of not abiding the company's unethical policies. Therefore, just to protect his right, respondent No.3 has joined respondent No.2 and made a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 02.03.2016 passed an order against the appellants not to change any service condition of the respondent No.3. The company has annoyed and also with malafide intentions issued a transfer order transferring the respondent No.3's service from Indore to Shri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) so that he could not have proceeded his complaint with the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Indore against the company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 543 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Shailendra Kumar vs Divisional Forest Officer on 6 July, 2017

In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595, the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, the decision of this Court in the case of Jyoti Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through Sanjay vs. Baljeet Singh passed in W. A. No.385/2017, Trustees of H. C. Dhanda, Trust through Jogesh Dhanda vs. State of M. P. & others decided on 04.09.2017 in W. A. No.265/2017 and Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the case of Shailendra Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another (W.A. No.286/2017), present writ appeal is not maintainable. On merit, he has submitted that the appellant pressurized the respondent No.3 to increase sales by unethical means and also threatened him for transfer and other disciplinary action in case of not abiding the company's unethical policies. Therefore, just to protect his right, respondent No.3 has joined respondent No.2 and made a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 02.03.2016 passed an order against the appellants not to change any service condition of the respondent No.3. The company has annoyed and also with malafide intentions issued a transfer order transferring the respondent No.3's service from Indore to Shri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) so that he could not have proceeded his complaint with the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Indore against the company.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 42 - Full Document
1   2 Next