Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“These directions shall continue to bind the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Commissioners under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 till rule-making power is properly exercised by the Government”.
Automotive Research Association of India performed various functions other than certification of vehicles and all its functions are not carried out under the authority of the Central Government.
Regarding the difficulties regarding education of petitioner’s children, the Court stated that the Labour Court has correctly recorded that children of the petitioner being aged 6 and 4 years, no academic damage would have been caused to their career had the petitioner complied with the transfer order.
The Court observed that the Labour Court’s Award is not happily worded, especially where it holds that in absence of a police complaint, employee’s act of overwriting on gate pass cannot be considered forgery.
The Court held that Lexis Nexis’ decision to deny the applicant the job of Senior Data Discovery and Enrichment Expert I, on the sole basis of his criminal history, constituted unfair discrimination.
Tata Memorial Hospital and Indian Cancer Research Centre were amalgamated into an institution named as Tata Memorial Centre, which was registered as a Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also as a public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Delhi High Court upholds Labour Court’s finding, affirming Hospital as an Industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 validating State Government’s referral authority, and confirming the continuous service of the workman.
by Amrut Anil Joshi† and Anand Ratnakar Pai††
“The respondents were directed to count the service of the workman from the date of removal till his death with all attendant benefits payable to the petitioner but without back wages.”
by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal* and Varun Rajiv Joshi**
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
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Labour Court wherein it was held that since the messenger boy of a Bank was unable to establish that he moved an application for absorption in the service in pursuance of the Bipartite Settlement, therefore, he was not entitled to regularisation of service. Further, the Dehi High Court held that regularisation was not a matter of right and therefore, this Court could not direct the respondent Bank to regularize the services of the messenger boy.
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
Kerala High Court: In a petition challenging the order dismissing the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Gujarat High Court: The instant petitions came up before the Court challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Vadodara, whereby which it
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J. allowed petitions which were filed challenging the awards of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement
Karnataka High Court: K.S. Mudagal, J., allowed the petition and set aside the impugned award awarding compensation as well as the silver
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., while examining a case which was dismissed 30 years ago with regard to a workman’s
Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna,