Search Results for "union office bearer"

141 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 141 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Petition Challenging Workman's Right to Advocate in Domestic Enquiry. Management Representative with HR Background and Enquiry Experience Deemed Legally Trained Mind, Justifying Workman's Right to Legal Representation Under MRTU & PULP Act.

The case involves a challenge by the employer, The Indian Express (P) Ltd and its officers, against an order of the Industrial Court at Thane dated 9 ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

"Supreme Court Affirms Need for Minority Establishment in AMU’s Minority Status Dispute" AMU’s Minority Status Under Scrutiny: Establishment by Legislature Versus Minority Founding Rights

The Supreme Court judgment in Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. primarily deals with the issue of minority rights in education, f...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Employer's Petition in MRTU & PULP Act Case — Industrial Court Exceeded Jurisdiction by Directing Employer to Pay for Workmen's Defence Advocate. No Statutory Obligation on Employer to Bear Cost of Advocate for Workmen in Domestic Enquiry Under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

The petitioners, M/s. Esdee Paints Ltd. and its directors, challenged an order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Industrial Court Order Directing Employer to Bear Advocate Costs for Workmen in Domestic Enquiry — MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 — Held that Industrial Court exceeded jurisdiction by imposing financial burden on employer without legal basis.

The petitioners, M/s. Esdee Paints Ltd. and its directors, challenged an order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, in Revision App...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging BCCI's Amendment Excluding IPL and CLT20 from Conflict of Interest Regulations. The court held that the amendment was a valid policy decision by a private body and not subject to judicial review unless it violates statutory provisions or fundamental rights.

The petitioner, Cricket Association of Bihar, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the amendment to Regulation 6.2.4 of the BCCI Regul...