Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (2.34 seconds)
Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. & Anr on 17 December, 2009 cites

Century Textiles And Industries Ltd., ... vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board, ... on 10 December, 1996

4. The above two judgments are challenged basically on the contention that the judgment in the case of Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra) is essentially a correct judgment, while the view taken by the Full Bench and the interpretation put forth by the same of the Sections 2(11) and 2(12) of the Mathadi Act, is erroneous inasmuch as the impugned judgments have ignored to take into account the context in which these provisions have been enacted and they also ignored the intention of the Legislature, which is reflected from the Preamble and the other provisions of this Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Irkar D. Shahu And Anr. vs The Bombay Port Trust And Ors. on 6 October, 1993

Another letter was dated 3.10.1991 addressed to the Secretary, Mumbai Timber Merchants Association Ltd., specifying that the direct labourers of the employer doing loading/unloading work would not be covered by the said Act. Though these two letters were never procured, they were produced before us. Further, a reference is made to the letter of Mathadi Board (Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board) dated 17.11.1983, wherein the Mathadi Board understood and applied the Act only to that special class of workers doing loading and unloading operations in scheduled employments, who were in the regular employments of an employer and, therefore, were not protected by other applicable labour legislations. It was also urged that only after the impugned judgment was passed, the Mathadi Boards have started asking the employers to register them under the Act even if they are engaging regular full time workers. It was urged that in Irkar Sahu's & Anr. Vs. Bombay Port Trust (cited supra), the Mathadi Board had taken such a position and they could not now turn back from their stance. From this, the Learned Senior Counsel urged that since the State Government itself understood the provision in a particular manner, such understanding should be honoured by the Courts.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Printers (Mysore) Ltd vs Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer on 7 February, 1994

As regards decision in Printers (Mysore) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. (cited supra), we do not think that the case is helpful to the appellants. Therein, the controversy was about the definition of "goods" in Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the controversy was as to whether the word "goods" could be read in a different manner. Such is not the controversy here.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 23 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 May, 1995

The reliance was placed on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Rege, J. in C. Jairam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra) on 19.4.1974 and in S.B. More & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (cited supra) on 24.4.1974 and four other Division Bench Judgments in Lallubhai Kevaldas & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (cited supra), Irkar Sahu's & Anr. Vs. Bombay Port Trust (cited supra), Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra) including this Court judgment in Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and Central Kamgar Union Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (cited supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors on 26 October, 2005

Tested on the basis of this logic in the celebrated decision of State of Gujarat Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. (cited supra), we have no hesitation, but to hold that the application of doctrine of stare decisis cannot help the appellants in this case. We must express here that while rejecting the arguments of appellants, we have in our minds, those thousands of workmen who are otherwise exploited by Toliwalas, Mukadams and at times, the employers. The enactment is a beneficial enactment, providing the protection to such workers, who do not have the honest representation and it is with this lofty idea that a progressive State like State of Maharashtra has brought about this legislation. Viewed from these angles, it will have to be held that the definition would have to be all the more broad, engulfing maximum area to the advantage of a workman. It is with this idea that we reject the argument of the stare decisis, though very ably put by Shri Cama, Shri C.U. Singh, Learned Senior Counsel and other Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 241 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next