Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Binny Limited vs Presiding Officer And Ors. on 5 June, 1984

Rambagh Palace Hotel Ltd. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 7 January, 2000

Reliance is also placed for this fact on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Binny Limited v. Presiding Officer and Others (1986-I-LLJ-220) and J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The Labour Appellate Tribunal of India Calcutta and Ors. (1959-1-LLJ-227) (SC) wherein it was held that the adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act does not mean adjudication according to the strict law of master and servant. An adjudicator's award may contain provisions for settlement of a dispute which no Court could order if it was bound by ordinary law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N. Raman And Ors. vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 19 July, 1991

11. Further, the plea on behalf of the respondent is that Section 9-A will have no application to the case on hand where the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award, as stipulated in proviso to Section 9-A. There is no question of any award in the present case prior to the award passed and is under challenge now. It is to be considered whether the change has been effected in pursuance of any settlement. The learned Counsel for the second respondent relied upon the definition of settlement' contained in Section 2(p) of the Act to contend that the word settlement as defined under the Act means a settlement arrived at in the case of conciliation proceedings and includes a written agreement between the employer and the workmen as in this case. I am afraid, I cannot countenance such a plea inasmuch as a settlement to have the benefit of proviso (a) to Section 9-A should be a settlement binding on the worker or group of workers concerned. This is made clear by the definition contained in Section 2(p) itself when it slates that in respect of settlement or agreement otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings it should be such an agreement which has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy forwarded as contemplated therein to the competent authorities. Consequently, what stands excluded by the proviso is only a change effected pursuant to any settlement or agreement whether legally rendered binding or mutually agreed to and entered in to between parties and, therefore, binding on the parties concerned. This is not such a case and consequently, the stand of the management that they need not comply with the provisions of See.9-A before calling upon the workers who are not parties to the 18(1) settlement and on whom it is not binding, to comply with the terms of the settlement even when it amounts to a variation in their conditions of service cannot be countenanced. The decision reported in Binny Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Ors. (1986) 2 L.L.J. 220, of a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court relied upon for the management has no application to the case on hand. That was a case where the workmen and the management have reached a settlement in the course of conciliation superseding the terms of an earlier settlement without issuing any notice of termination and in that context the learned single Judge expressed the view that the proviso (a) to Section 9-A of the Act was attracted.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Limited vs Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha on 22 January, 2001

10. In the present case there is not only a vast majority but except a lone soul, all other field force employees have signed the settlement and they are presumed to be fair and just and are not liable to be ignored at all. Shri Rele has further cited an unreported judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of The Management of Binny Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer and Ors.,2 wherein in para 73 the learned Judge has observed as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R J Kochar - Full Document
1