Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
Supreme Court found the Industrial Tribunal justified in giving an award on a reference by the Central Government, and the Tribunal’s findings as unassailable.
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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 “is a beneficial legislation, for the benefit of the workmen and not paying the compensation since 2007 is clearly an abuse of the process of law.”
Delhi High Court observed that Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa, 1978 (3) SCR 207 acts as a North star for the courts to reach the conclusion regarding the applicability of the Industrial Dispute Act to an organization by laying down elaborate guidelines with respect to the definition of ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
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.
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
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar, CJ and R.K. Pattanaik J. dismissed the petition and upheld the judgment by
Karnataka High Court: K.S. Mudagal, J., allowed the petition and set aside the impugned award awarding compensation as well as the silver
Supreme Court: In the case where it was argued before the Court that the Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1958 which received
Kerala High Court: While expressing that, it is the duty of the welfare Government to protect not only the citizens, but to
“Overall activities and functions of the Irrigation Department would have to be considered while deciding the question whether it is carrying on manufacturing activities.”
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J., while dismissing the present petition and upholding the interpretation placed by the Labour Court with
Delhi High Court: Rekha Palli, J. while deciding a petition relied on various decisions in order to throw light on the significance
Delhi High Court: J.R. Midha, J. allowed a writ petition filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court whereby the
Patna High Court: Shivaji Pandey, J. allowed the writ application to the extent that the impugned order was remanded back to the
Supreme Court: Interpreting the provisions of Sections 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vis-à-vis a Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the