Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14121/3042
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Rights Education and Development Centre | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-09-13T05:30:36Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2022-09-13T05:30:36Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14121/3042 | - |
dc.description | The 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.abstract | Overview and conciliation process for worker's demand for increase in the bonus amount in the third year of employment. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.subject | Provident Fund (PF) | en_US |
dc.subject | District Office | en_US |
dc.title | Worker M vs Vetrivel Knits | en_US |
dc.type | Case Summary | en_US |
dc.description.host | Archives 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.page | 3 | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Case Summaries |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Worker_M_vs_Vetrivel_Knits.pdf | 80.38 kB | Adobe PDF | Preview PDFDownload |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.