Sám Hối Online

Kwinana terminal offered to end law suit against the State

New Delhi (PTI) – An Indian court has dropped a defamation case against one of the country's richest and most influential businessmen, claiming his family's "grievous injuries" caused by the litigation resulted from his "gross negligence" during the time it was pending. "I am happy that the law allows this," said Nirmala Sitharaman, who had sought monetary damages from billionaire Mukesh Ambani's company for allegedly "insulting" her through the defamation suit. However, the Supreme Court's order to drop the case against Mukesh Ambani's family by a Bench comprising Chief Justice RM Lodha, Justice Anil Verma and Justice H.S. Khehar has triggered a furious response from the United Arab Emirates, the UAE's own high court, which has now said it is considering whether to take up the matter. "I am surprised that the Supreme Court has issued such a sweeping orders. Our judicial traditions are clear," a court source told PTI on condition of anonymity. India-based company Star News has been fighting over the past few months against allegations by the company's founder and managing director, Mukesh Ambani, and some of its senior employees that they caused harm to his company by not paying severance payments for its board.

In an appeal submitted in January to the Bombay High Court, Star News had charged that Ambani and his family members – including some of his three sons – suffered "genital injuries" on their own during the course of the litigation, despite that litigation being resolved for a significant part of the time. The appeal alleged that, due to the family's "gross negligence" in its preparation of the case against Star News, "genital injuries to several members of the family" were caused, even though Star News had been advised to pay severance payments to its head office employees at the time.
예스카지노
우리카지노

Miner misses pay dispute deadline union wants probe

• U.S. Supreme Court: California's mandatory minimum sentences

• Supreme Court rejects new federal lawsuit against California

• California Legislature: More laws for workers, including minimum wage

On Jan. 31, 2014, the union failed to reach a collective bargaining agreement and decided to file for bankruptcy protection. On April 1, the bankruptcy trustee announced its intention to pursue claims in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The case involves two employees, one of whom has worked for BHP Billiton since 2006. The first employee was dismissed on Nov. 16, 2013, based on allegations that her employment was "in violation of her fundamental rights." The first alleged violation was that she was denied severance pay, overtime pay, and accrued sick days.

According to the motion, filed by the union's attorney William A. Avelar and filed under seal, the second employee was dismissed under the union's "Unfair Labor Practice" rule and was fired based on the employer's "failure to treat all members the same and effectively in a fair manner."

Avelar wrote in the motion: "The allegations in this case are as follows: first employee] was dismissed and subsequently demoted in 2013 because, as alleged by the United Steelworkers, BHP Billiton failed to treat her like all other workers. BHP Billiton has failed to treat the Plaintiff like other employees and she had to undergo unpaid training and job-safety training, to work late and to work with no break."

The second employee's complaint alleged violations of collective bargaining agreements and retaliation, including the "failure to make adequate and nondiscriminatory hiring and promotion practices in the workplace." The company also alleged that BHP had "discouraged or otherwise discouraged its employees from engaging in union activities."

In a January 29 email to colleagues, the second employee's employer, a corporate law firm and lawyers from the law firm DLA Piper, the first employee reported that: "Since January 2013, we were informed by a BHP employee of the conditions that BHP imposes on us. BHP has been actively encouraging the Plaintiff to take employment actions. BHP wants us to go on strike, and BHP management is currently threatening us that we might go out on strike…The employee is currently considering going on strike because of the lack of money."

This, the second employee wrote, "was the reason we got terminated in the first place, and because BHP management has been trying to punish us for going out on strike."

"We believe a court will not understand that we have the right to strike, and therefore we do not understand that the dismissal order that BH

Vô Danh

Ngày 2 tháng 6 năm 2020