by Amrut Anil Joshi† and Anand Ratnakar Pai††
Allahabad High Court said that it is not possible to hold that temporary employment for every seasonal increase in industrial activities as an unfair labour practice.
Delhi Court observed that it is crucial for Delhi Commission for Women to focus on substantive actions rather than superficial gestures just for the sake of publicity and bringing the name in newspaper or to find fault in the other institution when equal responsibility lies with them also.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that workmen can challenge their retrenchment order even after accepting retrenchment amount in case their employer has not followed the mandate of S. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Bombay High Court observed that if such a small number of employees continue to hold on to the accommodations, the AIAHCL will not be able to monetize the land to reduce the burden of debt AIL put on it.
Supreme Court reiterated that, in absence of any notification under S.10 of CLRA Act, 1970 and any allegations that the contract was sham and camouflage, the Courts cannot direct the principal employer to absorb contractual workers as employees
Delhi High Court: C Hari Shankar, J. opined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply in respect
Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna,
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Jyotsna Rewal Dua JJ., while deciding the present matter challenging
Delhi High Court: J.R. Midha, J., while addressing the present petition observed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India with
Jharkhand High Court: Rajesh Kumar, J., modified the order passed by the tribunal to the extent that relief granted by the Tribunal is
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Shekher Dhawan, J., dealt with a petition filed under Article 226