Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K. THAKKER
Kalptaru Projects International Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.K. THAKKER, J.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned AGPs Mr. Davda, Mr. Parmar and learned advocate Mr.Patel waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.10436 of 2025 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
3. The present petitions are filed challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Labour, Gandhinagar in Conciliation Case Nos.97 of 2023 and 103 of 2023.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company has a plant at Gandhinagar, and the present dispute pertains to the employees serving at Sector 28, Gandhinagar. The petitioner has a few employees on its roll in the workmen category, while other employees are working in the staff category. The petitioner has engaged more than 1000 contractual labourers in the plant at Sector 28, Gandhinagar through various contractors, including the contractors who are parties before this Court.
4.1. The State Government has granted licences to the said contractors under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation
The court ruled that without establishing an employer-employee relationship, reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is inappropriate; contracts are valid unless proven otherwise.
The court upheld the validity of a reference order made under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the administrative nature of such references and allowing the Tribunal to adjudicate claims from....
A dispute between a principal employer and contractors' workers does not constitute a valid industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, due to the absence of an employ....
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 Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring a contract as sham without a prohibition notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, which is necessary for such a determination.
The court clarified that direct prior demands are not mandatory for initiating conciliation and that the contractor-worker relationship can be adjudicated in the context of unfair labor practices and....
The settlement under Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be just and fair and cannot bind workmen if it does not meet this standard.
An unregistered trade union can represent workers collectively, and the status of employment should be determined by actual working conditions, not merely contractual labels, establishing permanent e....
The court established that without clear evidence of direct employment, claims of an employer-employee relationship under contract labour provisions cannot succeed.
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
