Posts

Showing posts with the label Industrial Dispute Act

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by

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

Image
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra Citation : AIR 1957 SC 264 F acts 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  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  Whether the agarias are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? Case History    The Industrial Tribunal favoured the respondent (Agarias) while holding that the Agarias are workmen within the meaning of the Act.  The Labour Appellate Tribunal also while dismissing the appeal favoured the responden

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) AIR 2000 SC 1274

Image
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) Case Summary  Facts In this landmark case, the female workers employed on a muster roll basis by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) filed a petition seeking maternity benefits. The female workers argued that they should be entitled to the same maternity benefits as regular employees under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.  Issue Whether female workers employed on a muster roll basis are entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961?  Respondent's Contentions 1. Right to Maternity Benefits : The petitioners contended that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which provides maternity benefits to female workers, should be applicable to them despite their muster roll status. 2. Equality and Non-discrimination: They argued that the denial of maternity benefits to muster roll female workers was discriminatory and violated their right to equality under Article 14 and right to life and personal liberty

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

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