Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (0.49 seconds)
Chief vs Suresh on 26 March, 2010 cites

Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... vs Ramesh Chandra Gouda And Anr. on 13 April, 1994

), per Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. See also: Chairman-cum-managing Director Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Chandra Gauda, [1994] II LLJ 1127 (1128-29) (Ori.) (D.B.), per Rath, J.) has pointed out that this clause being in the nature of an exception cannot be given meaning which will nullify or curtail the ambit of the principle clause, because it is not intended to be an outlet to unscrupulous employers to shunt out workmen in the garb of non-renewal of the contract even if the work subsists. The clause, therefore, has to be construed strictly in favour of the workman as far as possible. This provision cannot be resorted to, to frustrate the claim of the employee against uncalled for retrenchment or for denying other benefits. In other words, it is not to be so interpreted as to enable an employer to resort to the policy of `hire and fire' and give unguided power to him to renew or not to renew the contract irrespective of the circumstances in which it was entered into or the nature and extent of work for which he was employed. It has to be interpreted to limit it to the case where the work itself has been accomplished and the agreement of hiring for a specific period was genuine. If the work continues, the non-renewal of the contract has to be dubbed as mala fide.
Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Punjab State Electricity Board vs Darbara Singh on 17 November, 2005

Learned advocate Mr. Mithani relied upon decision in case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Darbara Singh reported in 2006 LLR 68. Learned advocate Mr. Mithani relied upon this decision only on the ground that such periodical appointment is covered by exception of section 2(oo)(bb) of I. D. Act and such termination can not consider to be retrenchment. Therefore, section 25 F is not required to be complied with. This judgment is not helpful to learned advocate Mr. Mithani because facts are otherwise. In facts of present, post in which respondent workman was appointed it was a regular vacancy of driver post which has been merely giving appointment on periodical basis. So it was not contractual appointment on temporary post but it was an appointment on periodical basis against regular vacant post of driver. Therefore, this decision is not applicable to facts of present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 55 - A Pasayat - Full Document

M.D., Karnataka Handloom Dev. Corpn. ... vs Sri Mahadeva Laxman Raval on 16 November, 2006

He relied upon another decision of Apex Court in case of M. D., Karnataka Handloom Dev. Corpn. Ltd Vs. Mahadeva Laxman Raval reported in AIR 2007 SC 631, where Apex Court has considered fact that respondent engaged on contract basis as assigned to train weavers on time specific short term scheme sponsored by State Handloom Dev. Corpn., paid stipend, is not a 'worker'. Soon after expiry of specific period respondent's service was discontinued. It is not retrenchment, as defined under section 2(oo) of the I. D. Act. The aforesaid decision is also not applicable to facts of this case. However, decision which has been relied by learned advocate Mr. Mithani mainly to establish his defence that case of respondent workman covered by exception of section 2(oo)(bb) of I. D. Act, but this specific contention was not raised before Labour Court that case of termination of workman covered by exception u/s 2(oo)(bb) of I. D. Act, 1947. However, Labour Court has impliedly dealt with this contention on the ground that post has been created by petitioner authority on regular basis and against that post, workman was appointed as driver which period has been subsequently extended by petitioner authority. Thereafter, on 30/6/2003 service of workman was terminated means not extended and though it was not an appointment of workman for short term basis or in project or under scheme which required to be made periodical appointment. After terminating service of workman post of driver remained continue in which another person was appointed. Therefore, petitioner authority has not justified such termination of workman which has been found to be contrary to section 25 F G and H of I. D. Act, 1947.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 65 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next