Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14121/3042
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRights Education and Development Centre-
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-13T05:30:36Z-
dc.date.available2022-09-13T05:30:36Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14121/3042-
dc.descriptionThe worker approached the Labour Commissioner on the advice CITU representative. The commissioner supported the worker initially. However, in the following hearings agreeing with employer's business losses did not accept worker's demand. The worker argued that the management and the officer belonged to the same caste and their affinities lead to the decision against the worker.en_US
dc.description.abstractOverview and conciliation process for worker's demand for increase in the bonus amount in the third year of employment.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectProvident Fund (PF)en_US
dc.subjectDistrict Officeen_US
dc.titleWorker M vs Vetrivel Knitsen_US
dc.typeCase Summaryen_US
dc.description.hostArchives of Indian Labour [V.V. Giri National Labour Institute (VVGNLI) - Association of Indian Labour Historians (AILH)]en_US
dc.description.dis“All content hosted in this archive has been obtained with prior permission and approval from the institutions, organisations, and individuals who have either published/produced or held these materials as part of their collections. These materials are meant for educational, research and for non-commercial use only.”en_US
dc.page3en_US
Appears in Collections:Case Summaries

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Worker_M_vs_Vetrivel_Knits.pdf80.38 kBAdobe PDF Preview PDFDownload


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.