Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bombay Housing and Area Development Board Vs. Smt. Vijaya Vilas Rane a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR647; (2001)3BOMLR500; [2001(89)FLR935]
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 1.8.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court. Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 216 of 1991 directing the Petitioners to reinstate the Respondent workman with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 1.2.1990.2. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent workman was initially appointed in a casual clerical vacancy from 18.2.1981 and thereafter she was given the work of a part-time sweeper on monthly basis of Rs. 650/ - per month from June 1981. According to the Respondent workman though the label of Part time Sweeper was put on her by the petitioner she was doing the work of a full time clerk and not the work of a part time sweeeper. I am not required to decide this controversy as to whether she was doing the work of a clerk or a sweeper as the same is the subject matter of another writ petition.3. According to the Petitioner the Respondent workman stopped reporting for work from 1...
Northcote Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dr. (Ms) Zarine H. Rahin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR333; (2001)3BOMLR714; [2001(89)FLR955]; 2001(3)MhLj476
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the Order dated 19.11.1997 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court in a Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 147 of 1995 at an interlocutory stage holding that the burden of leading evidence in the complaint would lie on the Petitioners on the Issue whether the Respondent employee was an employee within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act.2. The relevant facts are very simple. The Petitioners had employed the Respondent employee as a Resident Medical Officer, who was a Junior Medical Practitioner. It appears that the Petitioners had appointed the Respondent No. 1 on 1.4.1992 under a contract of service in the Managerial Administrative Capacity. It further appears that on 26.5.1994 a charge-sheet was served on her for an alleged act of misconduct. It further appears that the Respondent No. 1 objected to the departmental enquiry as she was not paid full salary as subsistence allowance. The Respondent No. 1, therefor...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›