Judgments - Industrial Dispute
M/s. Pratibha Syntex Ltd. & Ors. Versus M. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others
Novartis India Limited Vs. Vipin Shrivastava & others
Law Laid Down - The supervisory capacity necessarily has to be examined keeping in view the manual, unskilled, skilled, clerical work and the person performing such work is a “workman”. Meeting different professionals to promote sale of product of Pharmaceutical Company cannot be said to be manual or clerical work done by the Medical Representatives as it requires knowledge of product, its uses and also persuasive skills. May be, the Medical Representative does not supervise any person but he is the Full Judgment
The Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D. Ranchi VERSUS Their Workmen Rep. by District Secretary
Bhartiya Drugs and Chemicals Shramik Karmchari Parishad Vs.State of M.P.& others
Food Corporation of India VERSUS Gen. Secy, FCI India Employees Union & Ors.
Mohd. Ali Versus State of H.P. and Others
DEV NARAYAN Vs. THE MGMT.OF M/S AUTO PRECISION
Principal, Maharshi Vidya Mandir Lehdra Naka, Sagar Vs. Labour Court, Sagar & Another
Law Laid Down - The scheme of the M.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 particularly of Rule 10-A and Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 10-B of the said Rules makes it abundantly clear that the notice of the first hearing is not required to be given when the party has already appeared before the Labour Court on the basis of the notice issued by the Court. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10-B of the said Rules is not mandatory but pertains to matter of procedure and therefore, it Full Judgment
Vinod Singh Yadav Vs. M/s.Securitans India Pvt. Ltd.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Shri Birani Sons, Indore
Rajeshwar Mahto VERSUS Alok Kumar Gupta, G.M. M/s Birla Corporation Ltd.
The Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Mr. Prayag Modi
Law laid down - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972- The gratuity is a valuable right of an employee. It is also a property under Article 300A of the Constitution. The gratuity can be withheld only as per act and to the extent permissible under various provisions of Gratuity Act. The allegations established against the petitioner show that he was found guilty of negligence. No allegations relating to riotous or disorderly conduct or for involving moral turpitude were alleged and established. Hence Full Judgment