Posts

Showing posts with the label Industrial Dispute Act

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
Read more

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

By
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
Post a Comment
Read more

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

By
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
Post a Comment
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
Post a Comment
Read more