Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.81 seconds)Section 28 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Prakash Kashiram Sawant And Othersq vs M/S Motherson Advanced Tooling ... on 3 July, 2019
27) Thus, the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter
based on the complaint made and the allegations made before the
Industrial Court. So also, applying the case of Motherson (supra) the
WP 9900/25
25
employee in the facts of the present case could have also the option of filing
the case for termination either before the Labour Court if he restricted his
ULP only for unlawful termination under Item (1) of Schedule IV or the
Industrial Court, more particularly, when the employee alleges that he has
suffered at the hands of the Management for union related activities,
although it is the defence of the management that the termination is
independent of Union activities and is on account of loss of confidence in the
complaint for providing fake education certificate at the time of joining.
Section 44 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Factories Act, 1948
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd.& Ors on 9 July, 2008
Needless to state, the issue of
whether the respondent is an employer and whether there is
an employer employee relationship, will not be maintainable
before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court in view of the
Law laid down in Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd.,
(supra), Cipla Limited (supra) and Steel Authority of India
(supra).
Badami(D) Tr.Her Lr vs Bhali on 22 May, 2012
(ii) Badami Vs. Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574