Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1957 SC 264 : 1957 SCR 152

By

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra

Citation: AIR 1957 SC 264


Facts

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. (the appellant) employed certain agarias at their salt works. The dispute arose regarding the conditions under which the agarias should be engaged by the appellant in the manufacture of salt. Therefore the dispute was presented before the Industrial Tribunal. 

Appellant Contentions 

  1. The agarias were independent contractors and not workmen on the ground that the agarias had power to engage extra labour therefore the State was not competent to refer the present case for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Issue 

  1. Whether the agarias are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?

Case History 

  1.  The Industrial Tribunal favoured the respondent (Agarias) while holding that the Agarias are workmen within the meaning of the Act. 
  2. The Labour Appellate Tribunal also while dismissing the appeal favoured the respondent. 
  3. High Court: dismissed appeal therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

Judgement

  1. The Supreme Court of India had to determine the nature of the employment relationship. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor depends on the degree of control and supervision exercised by the employer over the work performed.
  2. The essential test to determine the relationship is the existence of the right to control and supervise the manner in which the work is performed.
  3.  In this case, it was found that the agarias were subject to significant control and supervision by the company. The company provided the tools and materials for the work, specified the work procedures, and had the authority to dismiss the workmen for unsatisfactory performance.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the agarias were indeed employees of Dharagadhara Chemical Works Ltd. and not independent contractors. Consequently, they were entitled to the benefits and protections provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more