Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY
All Orissa Contractors’ Association, Bhubaneswar – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lack of representation of contractors in the board. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. significance of contractor representation acknowledged. (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. legal criteria for board composition under the act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. order to include contractors in future board. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. T.K. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-Opposite Party.
3. Though the Petitioner in specific has prayed for quashing of the Notification dated 07.02.2020 under Annexure-2 and the impugned order dated 19.08.2022 under Annexure-5, but his general grievance is for giving proper representation to the Contractors’ Association in the Board.
5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the Petitioner had accordingly made his representation within the stipulated time, but the same was neither considered nor any representation was given to their Association in the next constituted Board that was constituted on 28.04.2023 under Annexure-B series. It is seen from the Notification dated 28.04.2023 that while constituting the Board, Employers’ representation was given to the Engin
Contractors must be represented in the State Welfare Board as per the mandate of the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, ensuring the employers' inclusivity in representation.
The Appellate Tribunal rightly limited Provident Fund coverage to canteen employees, confirming that casual and contract workers lack a defined employment connection under the Employees Provident Fun....
The court established that retired employees cannot be arbitrarily excluded from union representation in grievance redressal processes, affirming their rights under the Trade Unions Act and Industria....
The rights of representation under Sections 36(1) and (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are unconditional and independent of the conditions in Section 36(4).
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prevails over the Advocates Act, requiring express consent and court leave for legal representation in industrial disputes.
for a complaint to be maintainable under the MRTU and PULP Act, admitted employer and employee relationship is a pre-condition. The provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act can be enforced only after the ....
Recognised unions exclusively represent collective disputes under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, prohibiting unrecognised unions from participation.
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....
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
