Judgments - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
Mohd. Ali Versus State of H.P. and Others
Principal, Maharshi Vidya Mandir Lehdra Naka, Sagar Vs. Labour Court, Sagar & Another
Law Laid Down - The scheme of the M.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 particularly of Rule 10-A and Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 10-B of the said Rules makes it abundantly clear that the notice of the first hearing is not required to be given when the party has already appeared before the Labour Court on the basis of the notice issued by the Court. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10-B of the said Rules is not mandatory but pertains to matter of procedure and therefore, it Full Judgment
Vinod Singh Yadav Vs. M/s.Securitans India Pvt. Ltd.
Rajeshwar Mahto VERSUS Alok Kumar Gupta, G.M. M/s Birla Corporation Ltd.
Manish Makhija Vs. Central Bank of India and others
Law laid down - Section 14(1) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002- satisfaction of Magistrate- not specifically required to be recorded. The satisfaction is regarding adjudicating that nine points of declaration are covered in the affidavit. It does not call for any modicum of enquiry into the veracity or justification or the decision of declaration or any aspect thereof. Even if the word “satisfaction” is not recorded by the Magistrate but his Full Judgment
Smt. K.A. Annamma VERSUS The Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd.
National Kamgar Union VERSUS Kran Rader Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Caparo Engineering India Ltd Vs. Pradhanmantri Engineering Shramik Sanghthan
District Development Officer & Anr. VERSUS Satish Kantilal Amrelia
M/S.MATERIAL MOVEMENT P.LTD Vs. WORKMEN RAM AVTAR & ORS.
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jabalpur & another
Law Laid Down: (i) Limitation -inordinate delay in filing reference is required to be dealt with by the Labour Court in its proper perspective – In the present case, application for reinstatement was filed after 4 years, the same is held liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Reliance is placed on Prabhakar vs Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another, (2015) 15 SCC 1 (ii) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25 - B(2)(a)(ii) - Burden of proof – Full Judgment
Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and others V/s Neeraj Kumar Barman and others
Law Laid Down - A daily wager, by the nomenclature itself, is not a regular employee as there is no established employer and employee relationship. Therefore, he has no right against the employer except as may be available to him under applicable laws such as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Prohibition against the employer not to terminate services of a daily wager cannot be sought as it is not even available to regular employee. Full Judgment