Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.39 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
Section 32 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 28 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Anr on 9 January, 2001
Had the three-Judge Bench stopped
katkam Page No. 21 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2024 01:11:11 :::
k 22/30 1_wp_9664.21_as.doc
therein, we have no other option except to apply the principle
as stated in General Labour Union (Red Flag) case , Vividh
Kamgar Sabha case , Cipla Ltd. case , Sarva Shramik Sangh
case and Oswal Petrochemicals . However, from para 23
onwards, the three-Judge Bench discussed the main issue with
which we are concerned, namely, "whether from the material
on record it could be held that the workmen are, in fact, the
employees of the management for all purposes".
General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay vs Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. ... on 8 September, 1993
Had the three-Judge Bench stopped
katkam Page No. 21 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2024 01:11:11 :::
k 22/30 1_wp_9664.21_as.doc
therein, we have no other option except to apply the principle
as stated in General Labour Union (Red Flag) case , Vividh
Kamgar Sabha case , Cipla Ltd. case , Sarva Shramik Sangh
case and Oswal Petrochemicals . However, from para 23
onwards, the three-Judge Bench discussed the main issue with
which we are concerned, namely, "whether from the material
on record it could be held that the workmen are, in fact, the
employees of the management for all purposes".
Cipla Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors on 21 February, 2001
24. The common thread passing through all these judgments is that the
threshold question to be decided is whether the industrial dispute could be
raised for abolition of the contract labour system in view of the provisions of
the Maharashtra Act. What happens to an employee engaged by the
contractor if the contract made is abolished, is not really involved in the
dispute. There can be no quarrel with the proposition as contended by the
appellants that the jurisdiction to decide a matter would essentially depend
upon pleadings in the plaint. But in a case like the present one, where the
fundamental fact decides the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself,
the position would be slightly different. In order to entertain a complaint
under the Maharashtra Act it has to be established that the claimant was
an employee of the employer against whom complaint is made under the ID
Act. When there is no dispute about such relationship, as noted in para 9
of Cipla case [(2001) 3 SCC 101 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 520] the Maharashtra
Act would have full application. When that basic claim is disputed obviously
the issue has to be adjudicated by the forum which is competent to
adjudicate. The sine qua non for application of the concept of unfair labour
practice is the existence of a direct relationship of employer and employee.
M.M.R. Khan And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 27 February, 1990
After considering Parimal
Chandra Raha case and M.M.R. Khan v. Union of
India and RBI v. Workmen this Court concluded that the
workmen of a statutory canteen would be the workmen of the
establishment for the purpose of the Factories Act only and not
for all other purposes.