m.v.prabhakar
18 December 2008 at 10:06
Sir,
1.Can you pl. tell under what situation the review DPC is permitted along with CAT/HC/SC judgements.
2.Can a review DPC is possible when an applicant was considered as /deemed to be suspended on the date of original DPC which was revocked subsequently with retrospective effect (earlier to original DPC date). What remedy is available.
3.Sealed cover was opened after two years of DPC result and regular promotion was given with a rider that in the event the promotee punished under crimial proceedings the promotee will be reverted back.
My qurry is
If the candidate (refered in 2 above) is called and selected in the subsequrnt DPC for the next grade (result is kept in the sealed cover) can he be promoted with the similar terms.
Kindly give you expert advise supported with some case laws.
All the above three questions are relating to the same person.
Regards
CA Prabhakar
Aditya Mudgal
16 December 2008 at 20:08
Dear Experts,
There is a slight confusion in my head with regard to salesmen who go out into the market to take orders from wholesalers and retailers in non-pharmaceutical sectors.. Since the May and Baker India Ltd. v. Their Workmen decision, sales promotion employees were held not to be workmen under the ID Act, 1947. Subsequently, the Sales Promotion Employees (conditions of service) Act, 1976 was enacted. Under the said Act, Section 6 (2), medical representatives were brought within the purview of the ID Act, 1947. However, the question as to the nature of non-medical sales promotion employees from industries not yet notified by the govt. under the Act remains. They are not 'workmen' under the ID Act since they do not come within the scope of manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, and if they have performed any of such work then it is not part of their main avocation as sales representative... Kindly Reconcile..
Thanks a lot..
R P KANGANE
16 December 2008 at 10:43
Hi :
Under the The Mumbai Labour Welfare Fund Act,1953 and others states Labour Welfare Fund Act, managers are not covered under the Act and no contribution is payable in respect of Supervisors drawing salary above Rs.3500/-.
Please clarify what is the interpretatin of supervisor and Manager. Mere designation can bar the eligibiilty or any other criteria is there. Also please clarify Rs.3500 salary means what whether it is basic, da or gross salary.
Please need your help.
jayanttelang
14 December 2008 at 22:48
Dear sir,i could not find the details about following case law on www.judis.nic.in
kindly help me, which high courts/district courts have been decided these case laws or send me details about these case law-
1.Shantanu v Hindustan Antibiotics 2000(3)CLR 881
2.Dolphin Laboratories v Labour Court n2001(2)LLJ 559
3.Lupin Ltd v Suresh 2007(4)KLT 1092
please help me as early as possible.
jayanttelang
13 December 2008 at 21:13
Dear sir,can u please provide me full details about following citations(case Laws)?
1.Shantanu v/s Hindustan antibiotics 2000 (3)CLR 881
2.Dolphin Laboratories v/s Labour Court 2001(2)LLJ 559
3.Lupin Ltd.v/s Suresh 2007(4)KLT 1092
Keshav Kumar Saxena
12 December 2008 at 18:36
Dear Sir,
Please tell whether it is necessary to provide Bonus to his employees for a Limited Company as per company act while the company is a new incorporated unit and has not completed five years.
Associate R
12 December 2008 at 13:53
Respected Experts,
I have filed a complaint of unfair labour practice against the Company at Bombay Industrial Court on closure of the company praying for interim relief to make the payment of legal dues within one month. The Hon'ble court raised a query about its power/authority to pass such order directing the Respondent to pay the dues within one month and directed me to submit case law on the point. The Hon'ble Court is very much concerned about the time period of payment and expressed its inability to pass such order in the absence of any case law. I will be greatful if anyone provide me with case law to this pont.
Thanks in advance!
Aditya Mudgal
11 December 2008 at 17:32
Dear Experts,
If there is a clause in a contract where the principal employer frees himself from all responsibilities as far as labour law is concerned and places the responsibility on the contractor, will it free itself from any liability arising thereon. Examine the following clause:
"Service Provider shall ensure that the workmen employed shall not raise any industrial dispute, either directly or indirectly with or against Company in respect of their service conditions or otherwise."
Now, the CLRA states that
20. LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER IN CERTAIN CASES. - (1) If any amenity required to be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18 or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment is not provided by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as may be prescribed.
(2) All expenses incurred by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt by the contractor.
&
23. CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS REGARDING EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACT LABOUR. - Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rules made there under prohibiting, restricting or regulating the employment of contract labour, or contravenes any condition of a license granted under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention.
Can this clause mentioned above absolve the PE from liability?
Basically, can a contractual agreement transfer statutory liability to another?
Thanks
anu
11 December 2008 at 16:54
I am working in Multinational Company in noida as a software engineer in India.I joined on 25th August 2008. There is a bond with the company of Rs. 1 Lacs for two year working with them.Its a one way bond i.e. only from my side to the company . But due to some reason i would like to leave the company before two years,is it necessary to fill that bond of Rs. 1Lacs? Tell me tha way i.e. i should not fill that bond.
Please reply
aneeta.hbti@gmail.com
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Withdrawl of Compensation on maturity (kept in FD)
In a compensation matter, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass orders granting compensation amount and kept it in Fixed Deposit in the name of minor child and the matter got disposed off in 2000. This matter was represented by an Advocate earlier. Now the F.D. got matured and the minor child has also become major and wants to withdraw the amount. For this purpose now the client has engaged another Advocate. Now the Hon'ble Court has rasied a query that the Applicants need to be identified by earlier Advocate & take his NOC. As far as my knowledge is concerned, when the matter got disposed off, the role of earlier Advocate ceases and there is no need to take NOC simply for withdrawal of amount on maturity of FD. I will be obliged if any one provide me the relevant judgments related to the same and please guide in the matter.