Category: Labour Cases

Workman—Definition of—Nomenclature is not of any consequence. Whether a particular employee comes within the definition of workman has to be decided factually. Labour Law—Industrial Relation Executive—Plea that appellant was not doing managerial or administrate work, not accepted.

2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2890 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal Nos. 6543-6544 of…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 16 – Daily wager – Regularisation of service – Respondents employed on daily wages – High Court directed that on basis of Notification G.O.Ms No. 212, respondent employees shall be regularised w.e.f. the date they completed five years of continuous service

  AIR 1999 SC 1601 : (1998) SCC(L&S) 1747 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DISTT. COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. T. DEVENDERPAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Accident–Only because Section 143 and 167 of the 1988 Act refer to the provisions of the 1923 Act, the same by itself would not mean that the provisions of the 1988 Act, proprio vigore would apply in regard to a proceeding for payment under the 1923 Act. Accident–Workman—The husband would not be a “workman” of his wife in absence of any specific contract.

  2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1929 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 856 of…

Held according to the test laid down by a seven Judge Bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Severage Board vs. A Rajappa and Others, (1978)2 SCC 213, the Telecom Department of Union of India is an ‘industry’ within that definition, because it is engaged in a commercial activity and the Department is not engaged in discharging any one of the sovereign functions of the State.

  AIR 1998 SC 656 : (1997) 9 JT 234 : (1997) 7 SCALE 99 : (1997) 8 SCC 767 : (1998) SCC(L&S) 6 : (1997) 5 SCR 212 Supp…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.