Advanced Search Results

Koshy and Thomas Vs. State

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Labour and IndustrialCriminal

Acts : Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 - Sections 2; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 128

Reported in : ILR1987KAR3814

are A-1 and A-2 respectively in the trial Court.The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Bangalore, and Inspector under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, has lodged a complaint against Petitioners Nos. I and 2 under Section 10(1)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act,

Sita Devi and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 32; Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 - Sections 2

Reported in : AIR1996SC2764; [1996(74)FLR2386]; JT1996(7)SC438; (1996)IILLJ817SC; 1996(6)SCALE151; (1996)10SCC1; [1996]Supp5SCR173; 1996(2)LC513(SC); (1997)1UPLBEC567

after referring to the definition of 'same work or work of a similar nature' in Section 2(h) of Equal Remuneration Act 1976, that :the stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar conditions. Further,

Air India CabIn Crew Association Vs. Yeshawinee Merchant and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 15(1), 16, 16(2), 51A, 77 and 226; Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 - Sections 2, 4, 5, 15 and 16; Air Corporations Act, 1953 - Sections 34, 34(1) and 45(2); Air Corporations Regulations - Regulation 46(1); Income Tax Act - Sections 89 and 192(2A); Air Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1994; Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946; Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 10

Reported in : AIR2004SC187; 2003(4)ALD97(SC); 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)364; JT2003(5)SC413; (2003)IIILLJ1SC; 2003(5)SCALE208; (2003)6SCC277; 2003(2)LC1358(SC); (2003)2UPLBEC1852

violative of Articles 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India as also Section 5 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (for short the ER Act) and contrary to the mandatory directions issued by the Central Government under Section … This batch of appeals has been filed against the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 20-23.8.2001.2. In a batch of petitions filed by respondents Air India Air hostesses Association and its members (shortly referred

State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Pramod Bhartiya and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ConstitutionLabour and Industrial

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(1), 37 and 39; Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 - Sections 2

Reported in : AIR1993SC286; [1992(65)FLR991]; JT1992(5)SC683; (1993)ILLJ490SC; 1993(I)OLR(SC)448; 1992(2)SCALE791; (1993)1SCC539; [1992]Supp1SCR904

the expressions 'same work or work of similar nature' contained in Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The said Act was enacted by Parliament (as pointed out by this Court in Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Andrey

M/s. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Audrey D'costa and another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ServiceLabour and Industrial

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 2, 3, 39, 119, 136 and 226; Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 - Sections 2, 3, 4, 4(1) and 7

Reported in : AIR1987SC1281; (1987)2CompLJ165(SC); 1987(89)Crimes156; [1987(54)FLR530]; JT1987(2)SC34; (1987)ILLJ536SC; 1987(1)SCALE627; (1987)2SCC469; [1987]2SCR659; 1988(1)SLJ196(SC);

No. 1042 of 1986, the question whether the petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (No. 25 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises for consideration.2. The petitioner is a company

irene Fernandes Vs. Neo Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Reported in : (1997)99BOMLR633

she was being paid only Rs. 700/- p.m.. The petitioner therefore filed claim under Section 7(1)(b) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 claiming payment at the same rate at which her male counterpart i.e. Vithal Shetty was paid.3. The Assistant … has been appointed as an authority under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 by his judgment and order dated 25.6.1992 allowed the application holding that respondent No. 1 company has violated the provisions of Section 4 of Equal

K.V. Kamath Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Equal Remuneration Rules, 1976 - Rule 6; ;Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 - Sections 2 and 10(1); ;Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 2; ;Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 2

Reported in : 2006(4)CHN658,[2007(113)FLR853],(2007)ILLJ936Cal

the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding being Case No. C-3006 of 2002 under Section 10(1)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 read with Rule 6 of the Equal Remuneration Rules, 1976 and for setting aside the orders dated 04.06.2003 … entrusted with the day-to-day affairs of such branch and is being treated as an employer as defined in Section 2(c) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, and as such the petitioner has unnecessarily been implicated in the case.

U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sant Raj Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 - Sections 3 and 16; ;Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 - Sections 2; ;Constitution of India - Articles 14 to 16 and 39

Reported in : AIR2006SC2296; (2006)IIILLJ509SC; (2006)4MLJ618(SC); 2006(6)SCALE205; (2006)9SCC82; 2007(1)SLJ84(SC)

and Anr. v. Pramod Bhartiya and Ors. : (1993)ILLJ490SC referring to the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, this Court stated:13. It would be evident from this definition that the stress is upon the similarity of

ing Vysa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. State Represented by ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Subject : Labour and Industrial

2009 filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 10(1)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short). The respondent is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). The complaint is sought to be … Judgment: Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is taken up on board for hearing. 2. Heard Shri N. Sardessai, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri M. Amonkar, the learned Additional Public

Vijaya Bank, M.G. Road, Bangalore and Another Vs. State by Labour Enfo ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 190, 200 and 204(2); Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 - Sections 2, 9 and 10(1)

Reported in : ILR2000KAR4773; 2001(1)KarLJ457

ORDER1. This petition is directed against taking cognizance of an offence under Section 10(1) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 in C.C. No. 115 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Hassan.2.