Year Name of the case Section

Apprentice Act 1985 section 22

Apprentice Act 1986 Section 2

Apprentice Act 1995 section 22Apprentice Act 2000 Section 22Apprentice Act 2004 section 4

CLRA 2001 SAIL I Section 10CLRA 1997 Air India Case Section 10CLRA 2003 NTPC Vs. Karri Pothuraju Section 10CLRA 1985 Section 10CLRA 2006 SAIL-II Case Section 10CLRA 2006 APSRTC Section 10CLRA 1997 Section 21CLRA 1974CLRA 1992 Section 12CLRA 1997CLRA 2009 Panki Thermal StationCLRA 1995 Section 10CLRA 1997

Consitution 1951Consitution 1965Consitution 1967Consitution 1971 Article 13Consitution 1982 Section 14Consitution 1993 Article 16Consitution 1962 Article 19(1)(a)(b)Consitution 1962 Article 19(1)(c)Consitution 1982 Asiad Case Article 21, Article 23Consitution 1986 Article 21Consitution 1975 Indira Gandhi v. Raj NarainConsitution 1978 Maneka Gandhi CaseConsitution 1979 Section 12Consitution 1981 Section 12Consitution 1997 section 14Consitution 1993 Unni Krishnan vs State of AP Section 21Consitution 1955 Bengal Immunity Section 141

Factories Act 1975 state of Gujarat vs ND Shah Section 2(m)Factories Act 1984 Section 2(m)Factories Act Section 2(l)Factories Act 1977 Section 2(n)Factories Act 1998 Section 2(n)Factories Act 1992 Section 2(k)Factories Act 1996 Section 21Factories Act 1992 Section 46Factories Act 2003 Section 46Factories Act Section 80Factories Act 1952 Section 49

Narinder Kumar vs State of PunjabHanuman Prasad Choudhary

vs Rajasthan state electricity boardUPSRTC v UP parivahan

Nigam Shishuks Berozgar SanghApprentice Welfare

Association vs UP UP State Electricity Board vs Shiv Mohan Singh

BHEL Workers Association vs Union Of India

Senior regional Manager,FCI vs Tulsi Das bauriGammon India Ltd. Vs.

Union of India Deena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd.Construction v.

Commissioner of LabourRule 25 Same Similar workRule 25 Same Similar workGujarat State Electricity

Board Vs Union of IndiaDipak Sarkar v. State of BiharShankari Prasad Vs Union of IndiaSajjan Singh Vs State of

RajasthanGolak Nath Vs State of PunjabKeshava Nanda Bharati Vs

State of Kerala Randhir Singh vs Union of IndiaIndira Sawhney Vs Union of

India - Mandal CaseKameshwar Prasad Vs State of BiharAssociation Vs National

Industrial Tribulation

Corporation(Pavement Dweller case)

International Airport Authority of IndiaAjay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib

SehravardiVishaka vs state of Rajasthan

CMC ,Vellore v. Inspector of Factories, VelloreState of UP vs M.P.Singh

and othersJyoti Switchgears Ltd Vs Chief Inspector of Factories Indian Oil Corp Ltd Vs Chief

Inspector of FactoriesCricket Club of India Ltd. Vs. E.S.I. CorpnE.S.I Corp. v. Indian Textile

MillsCanteen Ltd v. Ashok Leyland & others NTPC Vs Karri Pothuraju &

othersShankar Balaji Waje v. State of MaharashtraNorthern India Vs. Secretary

of Labour

Description Explanation

Sham and Camouflage conditions

Amendment is not a law Amendment of rights is allowed under Article 368Amendment is not a law Amendment of rights is allowed under Article 368

Creamy layer + 50% cap on reservation

Article 21 includes Right to livelihood as wellFree Election is a basic structureRight to life includes right to live with dignity

In State, 2(n)(iii) applicable instead of 2(n)(ii)

has to absorb employees

SC quashed HC judgment.Taking trained apprentices is not reservation. Contractual obligation to both employer and apprentice. Appeal was allowed and appelants absorbed as junior engineers

The trained apprentices appealed to HC but plea was rejected stating that together with SC/ST reservation(47%) almost 100% of vacancies would be filled which is against law

Principle of harmonious construction, for S 2(s) IDA and S. 18 Apprentice act

An apprentice not covered by apprentice act shall be governed by ID Act, but an apprentice who is getting benefits from Apprentice Act shall not be covered by ID Act

4 guidelines - 1.preference over direct recruits, 2.not needed to be sponsored by an employment exchange, 3.age bar should be relaxed and 4.senior trainees will be given preference interview before being absorbed (Viva - Written exam ratio)if it is not regd an apprentice continues to be an apprentice and doesn't become a workmanmandatory. Prospective Over ruling of Air India Case 1996

goverment after consulting the central advisory board must look into the 4 conditions- Sec 10 (2) a-dcompany, reached this decision by objecta scripta-

absorb the labouresCanteen is essential under Sec 46 of the factories act. Employees to be regularized.about abolishing Contract Labour. Only the Appropriate Govt. can do it..abolished or not. this being the exclusive domain of Appropriate Govtrespondants have to approach the Industrial Tribunal and establish scam and camouflageContractor is liable to pay wages,failing which principal employer becomes liableSupreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Contract Labour Act

reasonable restriction and intelligible diffrentia respectivelyemployer has not obtained license or registration

respectively.equal to the wages paid by the principal employer to his workers doing similar works.pleading and materials by both parties to arrive at a conclusion that work is sameestablishments, when the appropriate Government abolishes the contract labour. Appropriate government for contractor will be same as of principal employer.

will be declared null and void, First time prospective overrulingRuling party can NOT change the Basic Structure of the constitution

Indian constitution. Directive principles are superior to fundamental rights.Equal pay for equal work is deducible from Article

14,16, 39(d) and Preamble.

Peaceful and orderly demonstration a fundamental right as a result of Article 19(1)(a)(b)

19(1) - Speech and expression + 19(b) - peaceful assemblya strike. These were later on made a legal right, but

they are not a fundamental rightbe handled by meagre fine, but adequately punished union v/s Delhi Adminstration), so it was shifted to

Directive Principle

The test to determine as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of

importance and related to state 6. if a department of state is transfered to a corporation

The case questions if a corporation was created by the state by a statuate or under a statuate then

meaning of article 12 and on the assesment of the relevent facts. of working women in place of their work until a

legislation to this effect is enactedRight to education upto the age of 14 is a fundamental right law made by SC is binding on all courts not including itselfnot necessarily 10 workers at the time of visit of factory inspectorLaundry connected to hospital washing only hospital's clothes not a factoryField Workers dont come under definition of workers.ultimate control on the affair of the factory then that person can be considered an owner

the members of club are also included in the definition of ‘manufacturing process’machinery is a contravention on the part of the employer.Need not absorb workers since canteen run by cooperative society

worker not allowed benefits of payment of wages during leave period500 workers only for a few months in the year and not continuously.

-Who pays salary

must give him a chance to explain himself. The principal of natural justice should be followed

Natural Justice principle: a) Free from bias and interest in the subject matter. b) audi alteram partem - reasonable opportunity to be heard. Not issued against a private body.

Natural Justice principle: a) Free from bias and interest in the subject matter. b) audi alteram partem - reasonable opportunity to be heard. Not issued against a private body.