Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.29 seconds)Section 46 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Parimal Chandra Raha & Ors vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 29 March, 1995
In Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union
(supra), the Honourable Judges referred to Parimal Chandra
Raha (supra), M.M.R.Khan (supra) and Indian
Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (supra) on the question as
to whether the establishment could be seen to be holding
complete control over the society and its employees while
deciding whether their regularisation or absorption would be
WPC 29022/06 & con. cases 22
legal or otherwise. We will consider those issues however in
this judgment along with the question as to whether the
employees are entitled to relief of regularisation in the
services of BPCL-KRL.
Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ... vs Shramik Sena And Ors on 4 August, 1999
In Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union
(supra), the Honourable Judges referred to Parimal Chandra
Raha (supra), M.M.R.Khan (supra) and Indian
Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (supra) on the question as
to whether the establishment could be seen to be holding
complete control over the society and its employees while
deciding whether their regularisation or absorption would be
WPC 29022/06 & con. cases 22
legal or otherwise. We will consider those issues however in
this judgment along with the question as to whether the
employees are entitled to relief of regularisation in the
services of BPCL-KRL.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Kgsd Canteen Employees Welfare ... on 3 January, 2006
In Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union
(supra), the Honourable Judges referred to Parimal Chandra
Raha (supra), M.M.R.Khan (supra) and Indian
Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (supra) on the question as
to whether the establishment could be seen to be holding
complete control over the society and its employees while
deciding whether their regularisation or absorption would be
WPC 29022/06 & con. cases 22
legal or otherwise. We will consider those issues however in
this judgment along with the question as to whether the
employees are entitled to relief of regularisation in the
services of BPCL-KRL.
Barat Fritz Werner Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2001
Union Of India [Railway Board] & Ors vs J.V. Subhaiah & Ors. Etc. Etc on 15 December, 1995
He also says that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had subsequently in Union of
India [Railway Board] and Others v. J.V.Subbaiah and
Others ((1996) 2 SCC 258) referred to this obvious flaw in
MMR Khan in paragraph 18 thereof, which reads as under:
Ram Singh And Others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors on 7 November, 2003
46. The above issues have also been lucidly answered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balvanth Rai Saluja
(supra)wherein their Lordships, after referring to several
English judgments and to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ram Singh v. UT, Chandigarh ((2004) 1
SCC 126) and in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat
Lal ((2011) 1 SCC 635), settled the law that in determining
the relationship of employer and employee, control is one of
the important tests but that is not the sole test. In making
such an assessment, their Lordships have stated that several
other factors and circumstances are required to be
considered, including the terms and conditions of the contract
and that a multiple pragmatic approach weighing all factors
for and against an employment is to be adopted, instead of
going by the sole test of control. Their Lordships have
postulated that an integral approach is needed and that if the
WPC 29022/06 & con. cases 44
industrial adjudicator finds that the contract between the
principal employer and the contractor to be sham or merely a
camouflage for denial of employment benefits to the employee
and that there was in fact a direct employment, it can grant
relief to the employee.