Back
BIREN VAISHNAV, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against dismissal of petition concerning employment status. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments by appellant contesting the labour court's award. (Para 3) |
| 3. union's defense asserting employment continuity and labour court's rationale. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis affirms labour court's findings on employment status. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been filed by the Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (GETCO), on being aggrieved by the oral order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the Corporation and in turn confirming the award dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference (Demand) No. 1 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated, the facts in the petition indicate that the petitioner - Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. had engaged workmen according to its perception on security contracts. These security workers engaged by the appellant raised an industrial dispute inter alia stating that they were the direct employees of the Corporation and the contractor through which they had been engaged was really a contract whic
The court clarified that the criteria for determining the employer-employee relationship must be correctly applied, emphasizing that mere supervision does not establish direct employment if the contr....
A judgment contrary to the evidence or without evidence is perverse. Concession of counsel on such facts and law does not bind the party.Master-servant relationship.
it is difficult to extend minimum time scale to the petitioners as they were not engaged by respondent Nos. 4 to 11 either on contract basis or outsourcing basis.
The court affirmed that non-compliance with contractor licensing does not negate the employer-employee relationship, emphasizing control and direct employment evidence.
The determination of employment relationships and the validity of contracts lies within the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator, particularly when claims of sham contracts are raised.
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
Section 10 of CLRA reads as prohibition of employment of contract labour.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide disputed facts under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act when there is no employer-employee relations....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
