NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPN LTD Vs. V LAKSHMINARAYANAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 10,2006

NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MANAGEMENT, EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT, EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR RASTOGI VS. P O LABOUR COURT-X [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-113] [REFERRED TO]
TARKESHWAR NATH RAI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
V RAVICHANDRAN VS. MANAGEMENT M R F LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-336] [REFERRED TO]
TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR TIRUNELVELI [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED COOPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. NAYAN R MODI [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
DAYAL SINGH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT KASHIPUR & ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2018-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-10-243] [REFERRED TO]
RATHOD ARUNBHAI BALDEVBHAI VS. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2007-3-289] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF AUDCO INDIA LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-3-211] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI MAGANBHAI CHAUHAN VS. ELECTROTHARM MACHINE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-260] [REFERRED TO]
CIPLA LTD VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2012-7-163] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD ADDITIONAL ENGINEER [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-195] [REFERRED TO]
BELLSONICA AUTO COMPONENT INDIA PVT LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-369] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The short point for decision in these appeals is whether in view of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "1961 Act") the 1st Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, was justified in holding that the respondent who had been appointed as an apprentice by the appellant herein was a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act). The said question also gives rise to the issue as to whether the Labour Court was right in holding that the termination of the respondents apprenticeship was in violation of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act and consequently whether he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and all back wages and other concessions accruing to him.
(3.)A few facts are required to be set out to appreciate the award passed by the Labour Court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.