ASIT BARAN MODAK V. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, DEOGHAR AND ANOTHER-10/01/2008-The Satsangh is a religious, social, charitable organization, which is established to propagate the teaching of the Guru. There is no business activity or trade activity. The Memorandum of Association and other documents would show that Satsangh is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the object of the Satsangh which is a public religious and charitable institution is to help and serve the society at large without discrimination on the principles of Shri Anukul Chandra, the Guru.
Code on Wages, 2019-An Act to amend and consolidate the laws relating to wages and bonus and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. (1) The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936), the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948), the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (21 of 1965) and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (25 of 1976) are hereby repealed.
Dock worker”-Dock worker: means a person employed or to be employed in, or in the vicinity of, any port on work in connection with the loading, unloading,Continue Reading
Fair wages-In December 1947 there was an Industries Conference with representatives of the Government of India and the Governments of the States, businessmen, industrialists and labourContinue Reading
Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Paramjeet Singh – 03/05/19-LABOUR LAW- The nature of the appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover, the contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could be dispensed with without any notice. The terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage.
QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT-The learned counsel for the accused No. 5 was at pains to persuade us that the said accused is now about 70/75 years of age and at this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to send him back to jail. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not impressed by this submission. Even in case of offence under Section 326, IPC, which commended to the High Court, the same was punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Had it been a conviction under Section 326, as aforesaid, the sentence of only about five months in the facts of the present case, by no stretch of imagination, was adequate.
Whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit?
The appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law.
The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads.