Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: employees · Page 1 of about 134,370 results (0.025 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Feb 02 1966

Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-02-1966

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 10(2) and 58K; Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 - Sections 17

Reported in : [1966]61ITR572(Bom)

the manufacture and sale of year and cloth in Bangalore. The Company started two provident funds for its employees. In the year 1941 it started provident found for the benefit of the monthly-rated employees and this found

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 15 2000

Ralliwolf Limited Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-i, for ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-15-2000

Subject : Service SICA

Acts : Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 5, 6, 7-A, 11, 12, 14-B, 15(2) and 17(5); Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 3, 4, 15(1), 16(2), 18 and 22(1); Constitution of India - Articles 21, 23, 39 and 41; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2 and 9-A; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 25, 32, 529A and 530; State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Sections 29; Bombay Village Panchayats Act., 1959; UP Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978

Reported in : (2001)1BOMLR235; [2001(88)FLR692]; (2001)ILLJ1423Bom; 2001(2)MhLj169

involved in the present proceedings is whether an action to recover dues payable under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is maintainable when the employer who is sought to be proceeded

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 26 1959

The Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commission ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-26-1959

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 - Sections 1(3), 2(1), 5, 5(1), 5(2), 6, 6(1), 6(2), 15, 15(1), 15(2), 16, 17 and 19A; Trusts Act, 1882 - Sections 83; Indian Companies Act, 1913; Provident Funds Act, 1925; Provident Funds Rules; Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; Constitution of India - Articles 19, 226 and 227; Charitable Trusts (Validation) Act, 1954

Reported in : AIR1961Bom157; (1960)62BOMLR425; [1960(1)FLR63]; ILR1960Bom580

1956) praying for the quashing of the above said demand on the ground that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act of 1952 were not applicable to the industry of the petitioner. The Division Bench of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Feb 13 2004

M.R. Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Nationalised Bank Cons ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-13-2004

Subject : ServiceLabour and Industrial

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 21, 217 and 226; Bank of Maharashtra Officers Service Regulation, 1979 - Regulation 2, 3, 19 and 20(2); Maharashtra Employees' Provident Fund Rules - Rule 2; Bank of Maharashtra (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995 - Regulation 20(2), 22, 22(1), 28, 29, 29(1), 30, 31, 31(1), 32, 33 and 34(1); Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 - Sections 12(2) and 19; Bank of Maharashtra Employees' Pension Regulations, 1955 - Regulation 29(1); Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2 and 18(1); Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957; Central Civil Service Rules - Rule 26; Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1948 - Regulations 16, 26 and 26(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2; Bank of

Reported in : 2004(2)ALLMR612; 2004(5)BomCR743; (2004)IILLJ1007Bom

it to his notice, did not do so. In the other banks, where the scheme was introduced the employees of those banks had been given certain monetary benefits which have been denied to the petitioner and other

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 10 1998

Air India Ltd. Vs. the Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity A ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-10-1998

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 4(6), 7, 13 and 14; Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules, 1972 - Rules 6 and 7(1); Constitution of India - Articles 41 and 226; Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 9; Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 60; Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 10 and 12; Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 - Rule 9(1); Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 630

Reported in : 1999(1)BomCR426; [1999(81)FLR900]

Controlling Authority though the issues involved were identical. Under the said orders, the respondents No. 3 to 26 employees were held eligible to recover the amount of their gratuity payable in accordance with the provisions of the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 17 2000

Sophia Shree Basant Kumar Memorial Polytechnic Vs. Regional Provident ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-17-2000

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 7A, 14B and 148

Reported in : 2001(1)BomCR791; (2001)1BOMLR428; [2001(88)FLR924]; (2001)ILLJ985Bom; 2001(1)MhLj211

Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), whereby the Commissioner directed the petitioner-institution to refund to its employees the amount that was deducted by the petitioner from the wages payable to the employees on account of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 19 1974

Rambhuwal Thakar Prasad Vs. Phoenix Mills

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-19-1974

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33A; Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 73

Reported in : (1976)ILLJ93Bom

Bench of the Madras High court that the employer had not properly discharged its obligation of examining the employees explanation was correct or not, by going through the facts on record and found that the certificate which

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 19 1966

The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay Vs. Bharat Barrel a ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-19-1966

Subject : InsuranceLabour and Industrial

Acts : Bombay Employees' Insurance Courts Rules, 1959 - Rules 13(3), 16, 17, 42(1) and 42(2); Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 75, 76 to 78, 78(2), 80, 96 and 96(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 2, 80 and 129; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 137; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 2(10)

Reported in : AIR1967Bom472; (1967)69BOMLR52; [1967(15)FLR369]; (1967)ILLJ625Bom; 1967MhLJ261; (2008)1SCC(L&S)558

Matched in: Parties The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay Vs. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Private Ltd. and Anr. (19.09.1966 - BOMHC)

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 06 1976

Consolidated Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V. Hema Chandra Rao

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-06-1976

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 - Sections 12; Provident Fund Act - Sections 12

Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR246; (1977)ILLJ114Bom

A very short question arises in this petition as to the correct meaning of S. 12 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Provident

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 07 1970

K.B. Khatavkar Vs. S. Taki Beligrami

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-07-1970

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 5, 10(1), 17, and 25H; Minimum Wages Act 1948 - Sections 5 and 17; Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions act - Sections 2 and 2(10)

Reported in : (1971)73BOMLR570; (1971)IILLJ445Bom; 1971MhLJ753

industry. In the second part, which may be called the inclusive part, of the definition are included contractor's employees and employees who are dismissed or discharged under certain circumstances. 3. It may be added that sub-clause (b)

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial