{"id":197470,"date":"2018-06-26T17:59:23","date_gmt":"2018-06-26T12:29:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=197470"},"modified":"2018-06-29T10:45:45","modified_gmt":"2018-06-29T05:15:45","slug":"existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/","title":{"rendered":"Existence of an \u2018employer-employee\u2019 relationship is a sine qua non for protection under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court: <\/strong>A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.C. Gupte, J. allowed a writ petition filed by \u2018IDBI Bank Ltd.\u2019 and dismissed the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Mumbai) passed in an application preferred by the respondent- workers union under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.<\/p>\n

The petitioner-Bank outsourced its non-core activities like house-keeping to a couple of contractors. The contractors further engaged the services of respondent workers. The services of three of the workers were terminated by the contractors in the year 2005. An industrial dispute was raised against the petitioner Bank. The matter which travelled to the High Court was dismissed on the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. In 2012, the demand of the respondent workers for regularisation of service met with the same fate. Subsequently, in 2017, the respondent workers filed another application demanding status quo <\/em>of their service conditions. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order, granted the application. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank filed the instant petition.<\/p>\n

The High Court perused the record and noted that the factum of the workers’ employed by the contractor, was established. The Court rejected the submission made on behalf of the respondent workers that they were entitled to the relief of status quo<\/em> as the Industrial Court has powers to pass an interim order pending the adjudication of a reference under Section 33. The High Court observed, before any industrial<\/em> adjudicator makes any order under Section 33 for maintenance of service conditions, it must be found that at least prima facie the person alleged to be an employer and against whom an order under Section 33 is sought, is really the employer of the applicant-workmen. <\/em>Since the employer-employee relationship was not established between the parties, the High Court held that order of the Tribunal was preposterous. Holding that the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional error, the High Court held that the same could not be sustained. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. [IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1285<\/a>, decided on 15-06-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.C. Gupte, J. allowed a writ petition filed by \u2018IDBI Bank Ltd.\u2019 and <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":74381,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[21654,30645,30231,30646],"class_list":["post-197470","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-industrial-disputes-act","tag-outsourced","tag-regularisation-of-service","tag-terminated"],"yoast_head":"\nExistence of an \u2018employer-employee\u2019 relationship is a sine qua non for protection under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Existence of an \u2018employer-employee\u2019 relationship is a sine qua non for protection under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.C. Gupte, J. allowed a writ petition filed by \u2018IDBI Bank Ltd.\u2019 and\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-06-26T12:29:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-29T05:15:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/\",\"name\":\"Existence of an \u2018employer-employee\u2019 relationship is a sine qua non for protection under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-26T12:29:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T05:15:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Existence of an \u2018employer-employee\u2019 relationship is a sine qua non for protection under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Existence of an \u2018employer-employee\u2019 relationship is a sine qua non for protection under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Existence of an \u2018employer-employee\u2019 relationship is a sine qua non for protection under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947","og_description":"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.C. Gupte, J. allowed a writ petition filed by \u2018IDBI Bank Ltd.\u2019 and","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-06-26T12:29:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-29T05:15:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/","name":"Existence of an \u2018employer-employee\u2019 relationship is a sine qua non for protection under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2018-06-26T12:29:23+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T05:15:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","width":1331,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/26\/existence-of-an-employer-employee-relationship-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-protection-under-section-33-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Existence of an \u2018employer-employee\u2019 relationship is a sine qua non for protection under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":236399,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/28\/bom-hc-will-strict-rules-of-pleadings-as-applicable-for-suits-filed-under-cpc-be-applicable-under-industrial-disputes-act-as-well-hc-elaborates\/","url_meta":{"origin":197470,"position":0},"title":"Bom HC | Will strict rules of pleadings as applicable for suits filed under CPC be applicable under Industrial Disputes Act as well? HC elaborates","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 28, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0Anil S. Kilor, J., reiterated that the strict rule of pleadings as applicable to civil suits is not applicable under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner's application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected by the Labour Court, Nagpur and the Judgments and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254557,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/22\/contractual-employees\/","url_meta":{"origin":197470,"position":1},"title":"To exercise rights, can contractual employees approach a permanent employer? Bom HC verdict determines","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 22, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: Reiterating the well-settled position that, contractual employees are not the employees of the principal employer, N.B. Suryawanshi, J., held that, Contractual employees are engaged through contractors, their service conditions are governed by the contracts between them, hence in case of any grievance, they shall approach the contractor\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":373975,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/28\/sc-prior-demand-not-mandatory-industrial-dispute-reference\/","url_meta":{"origin":197470,"position":2},"title":"Apprehended Industrial Dispute justifies Reference; Prior Demand Not Mandatory: Supreme Court","author":"Ritu","date":"January 28, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 cannot be quashed merely because no prior demand was served on the employer.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"prior demand not mandatory for industrial dispute","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/prior-demand-not-mandatory-for-industrial-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/prior-demand-not-mandatory-for-industrial-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/prior-demand-not-mandatory-for-industrial-dispute.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/prior-demand-not-mandatory-for-industrial-dispute.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":357531,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/23\/madras-hc-on-resolution-privatising-sanitary-work\/","url_meta":{"origin":197470,"position":3},"title":"Madras High Court refuses to quash Greater Chennai Corpn.\u2019s Resolution for privatisation of sanitary work","author":"Editor","date":"August 23, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court directed the State\/Greater Chennai Corporation to negotiate with Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd. to ensure sanitary workers are paid their last drawn wages if they joined the Company.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"privatising sanitary work","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/privatising-sanitary-work.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/privatising-sanitary-work.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/privatising-sanitary-work.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/privatising-sanitary-work.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275122,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/06\/kerala-high-court-section-332b-of-the-industrial-disputes-act-1947-labour-court-discharge-dismissal-unfair-practice-misconduct-natural-justice-legal-research-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":197470,"position":4},"title":"Kerala High Court| Object of an enquiry under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is to lift the veil to find out any hidden motive in punishing the workman","author":"Editor","date":"October 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Kerala High Court: In a petition challenging the order dismissing the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (\u2018the Act\u2019), Mohammed Nias C.P., J. has observed that the respondent has not properly considered the application under Section 33(2)(b) and it is necessary to question\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":280679,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/30\/delhi-high-court-denies-regularization-request-of-a-messenger-boy-of-a-bank-for-not-being-appointed-through-a-regular-process\/","url_meta":{"origin":197470,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court denies regularisation request of a messenger boy of a Bank for not being appointed through a regular process","author":"Editor","date":"December 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"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\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197470","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=197470"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197470\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197470"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197470"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197470"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}