SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Kar) 492

R.RAMAKRISHNA
HINDUJA CASUALS – Appellant
Versus
A. VITTAL RAO – Respondent


Advocates:
S.KRISHNAIAB, Somashekar Angadi

R. RAMAKRISHNA, J.

( 1 ) OF the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), made a reference to the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore for adjudication on the following points of dispute:"1) Is the management justified in terminating the services of the following workmen with effect from 20-4-1979? 1. A. Vittal Rao 2. S. Fazalulla 3. K. Suryanarayana 4. K. Mahaboob Khan 5. H. M. Ananda Rao 6. B. S. Shankar 7. H. A. Khuddus and 8. B. K. Natha Rao2) If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"

( 2 ) ON receipt of the above reference, the Additional Labour Court has registered the same in reference No. 7/1981 and issued notices to both the parties. In obedience to the notices, the parties have appeared and filed their respective claim statements.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection was taken by the petitioner M/s. Hinduja Casuals as to the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the workmen mentioned in the order of the reference were not its workmen and therefore, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

( 4 ) THIS contention of the petitioner was accepted and the Labour Court has rejected the reference without going t











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top