Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 48 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 35 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946
Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (K.V) Mumbai vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 28 November, 2007
41. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and do find that while a union alone could be entitled to raise a general grievance about employing casuals or temporaries covered under Item 6 of Schedule-IV, individual employees undoubtedly have a right to complain about failure to implement award, settlement or agreement, which include a Model Page 0836 Standing Order. Though a grievance about breach of Model Standing Orders under Item 9 may achieve a similar result as a complaint about unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule-IV, they are grievances of different kinds emanating from different rights. The judgments in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 1170 or Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098 or Paritosh AIR 1984 SC 1543 or South India Corporation (P) Ltd. AIR 1964 SC 207, on which the learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance, reiterate a well-known principle of construction, but this cannot be mechanically applied to the facts of the present case. We may recall judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarva Sharamik Sanghatana v. State of Maharashtra reported at , referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, where Lord Halsbury was quoted with approval, as under.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
(emphasis supplied)
A jobless person in a shrinking job market has little or no choice but to accept what is offered to him. He does not thereby opt for negation of even the statutory protection, which may be available to him. The learned Counsel submitted that the observations of the Apex Court in Umadevi's case even regarding the inequality of bargaining power have to be read in the context of the facts of that case. He pointed out that the Apex Court had to apply a corrective to a situation, where by misapplying judicial precedent, the Page 0824 bureaucracy had contributed to a burgeoning work force in the Government, with a bulging pressure on the scarce finances of the State for developmental activities. Judicial precedent was hijacked for sanctifying back-door entries in public employment. In fact this was the refrain in the judgment in Umadevi. Umadevi was not intended to do away with such protections as may be statutorily available to the employees concerned, but only refused regularization, in the particular context of back door entries in public employment. Such is not the present case. Judicial precedent cannot be stretched beyond what it decides.
Gangadhar Pillai vs M/S. Siemens Ltd on 10 November, 2006
In Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., the employer used to engage temporary personnel in the categories of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers on a temporary basis for the duration of project or site work, and on completion of the work, the services of the workman used to be terminated. The workman, whose case came up before the Apex Court Page 0819 was, however, employed almost on regular basis since 1978. After the services of the workman came to an end by the last spell of appointment till 10-5-2000, he filed a complaint complaining that the employer resorted to unfair labour practice under Item 6, Schedule IV to MRTU & PULP Act. In this context, when the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court observed in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment as under: