Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation, Sangli, Through Its Commissioner Vs. Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha

Decided On : Jul-23-2012

Court : Mumbai

LAW: Article 12 of the Constitution of India, Article 309, Section 40, Section 52, Section 1(5, the BPMC Act, Article 14, Section 30, Section 32, Section 25F, the ID Act, the IESO Act, Bombay Shops Act, Industrial Undertaking Act, Section 2(e, the IESO Act

CARDINAL: 2, 8 and 11, 3, 4, 5, 17.10.1996, 12(5, 6, 4.4.2005, 7, 2, 4, 7, 11, 3, 10, 4, 13, 25, 2, 4, 106, 5, 2, 6, 8, 9, 51 to 54, 45, 16, 10, 261, 262, 1, 1971”, 2, 293, 11, 12, 13, 14, one, more than 50/100, 15, 314, more than 50, 16, 17, 18, 19, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 5

PERSON: Award, Demand Nos, Sabha, Miraj, Kupwad, Nagar Panchayat, Miraj Kamgar Union, Kolhapur, Award, no.8, no.8, Narayan Kambale, Dnyaneshwar Topanna Kambale, Bhupal Gade, Sambhaji S. Salgar, Gundu Athane, Yasin Mahamad Hanif Momin, Balasaheb Rajaram Lavand, Vasant Tavade, no.8, Award, Award, Articles, Gangadhar Pillai Vs, Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, Bhandara Vs, Jaiwantabai, L.J. 765, Sitaram, Undertaking”, permanency and/or, Sitaram

DATE: 28 February 2011, 9 February 1998, 1965, 9/2/1998, 1949, 8 December, 1995, 17 October, 1996, 1947, 16 of 1991, 6 of 1996, 17.06.1997, 20 September 2004, 21.07.2005, 17.07.2006, 15.01.2007, 28 February 2011, 30, 27, 36, 39, 40, one year, one year, 1946, 2006, 2009, 2007, 240 days', 1971, 1996, 2007, 15 April 2008)itself, August 2008, the year 2011, the year 2008, daily, 28 February 2011

ORG: Industrial Tribunal, Sangli, the Respondent/Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha, the Government of Maharashtra, the Cities of Sangli, Petitioner Miraj Municipal Council, a Municipal Council, Maharashtra Municipal Councils, M. Council Act”, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, Miraj Municipal Council, The Municipal Council, The Government of Maharashtra, the Industrial Tribunal, the Tribunal at Sangli, the Miraj Kamgar Union, the Industrial Tribunal, the High Court, the High Court, no.9, Shabbir Malik Chabukswar, the State Government, BPMC Act, Government, Bombay Civil Services Rules, the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, MCS Rules, Tribunal, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders, BPMC, Municipal Authorities, Chapter IV, the Local Authorities, State, SC, Maharashtra SRTC, Casteribe Rajya, SC, the Apex Court, Umadevi, the Industrial and Labour Court, MRTU, The Supreme Court, Siemens Ltd., Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, PULP Act, The Apex Court, the Petitioner/Municipal Corporation, the State Government, State, Court, the State Government, Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Corporation, the State Government, the State Government, Municipal, Authority, Tribunal, Department, a Judgment of Sitaram Tukaram Walunj Vs, Ors, Tribunal, Corporation, Tribunal, the Petitioner/Municipal Corporation, Department, Respondents, the Petitioner/Corporation, Municipal Council, Municipal Council, Court, the State Government, the State Government, The Local Bodies, Petitioners, Government, Municipal Council Bhandara (Supra, Municipal Council Bhandara (Supra, the Apex Court, Umadevi, Maharashtra SRTC, These Supreme Court Judgments, the Supreme Court's, the Petitioner/Municipal Corporation, Respondents, Industrial Tribunal, Sangli, the Director of Municipal Administration, the State Government, the Union Fund

GPE: Act”, Act”, India, Karnataka v. Umadevi

EVENT: I.D. Act

PRODUCT: Respondent, no.9, no.1

LOC: Respondent

ORDINAL: second, first, first, second

PERCENT: 5%, 5%

WORK_OF_ART: The Writ Petition