Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Management Of Vishnu Sugar Mills ... vs Their Workmen Represented By Chini Mill ... on 9 March, 1960

M/S Grasim Industries Ltd.(Unit Indo ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 23 September, 2019

12. Very much the same argument was raised before the Supreme Court in the cases of Bijay Cotton Mills Limited (supra) and Management of Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited (supra). The Supreme Court has rejected such argument and observed that unless there is a notification of the Central Government with regard to bringing any industry under its control with respect to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same cannot be said to be a controlled industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. The "appropriate Government" would, therefore, not be the Central Government, but only the State Government.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

Central Arid Zone Research Institute vs Arid Zone Employees Union And Anr. on 13 May, 1997

12. Even though the petitioner Institute ought to have established its averments by leading some evidence before the Tribunal below or atleast should have attached any document with the writ petition to substantiate its argument, but no such thing has been done by the petitioner. But still to attract tile provisions of Section 2 (a)(i) a notification by the Central Government specifying it as a controlled industry is necessary. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd., Harkhua v. Workmen represented by Chini Mill Mazdoor Union, Harkhua (1960-II-LLJ-272) that for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 2(a)(i) with reference to that industry would not be the Central Government unless there is a notification by the Central Government in that behalf for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i). The Supreme Court has observed as under :-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Central Arid Zone Research Institute vs Arid Zone Employees Union And Anr. on 13 May, 1997

12. Even though the petitioner Institute ought to have established its averments by leading some evidence before the Tribunal below or atleast should have attached any document with the writ petition to substantiate its argument. But no such thing has been done by the petitioner. But still to attract the provisions of Section 2(a)(i) a notification by the Central Government specifying it as a controlled industry is necessary. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd., Harkhua v. Workmen represented by Chini Mill Mazdoor Union, Harkhua AIR I960 SC 812 that for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 2(a)(i) with reference to that industry would not be the Central Government unless there is a notification by the Central Government in that behalf for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i). The Supreme Court has observed as under-, Though sugar is a controlled industry under the Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act (65 of 1951) the Appropriate Government for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i), Industrial Disputes Act with reference to that industry would not be the Central Government unless there is a notification by the Central Government in that behalf for purposes of Section 2(a)(i). In order that the Appropriate Government under Section 2(a)(i) may be the Central Government for a controlled industry, it is necessary that such controlled industry should be specified by the Central Government for the purposes of S.Z (a)(i). It is not enough that an industry should be controlled industry to attract this provision of Section 2(e)(i).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shankar Amrita Deshmukh vs Paper & Pulp Conversions Ltd. & Ors. on 29 March, 1995

These three cases were further considered by this Court in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Its Workmen and reference was also made to the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Shri Ram Swarth Sinha v. Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd., 1954 Lab AC 697. It was pointed out that the important effect of omission to hold an inquiry was merely this; that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case, but would decide for itself on the evidence adduced whether the charges have really been made out.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

The New Maneck Chowk Spinning And ... vs The Textile Labour ... on 7 December, 1960

Reference was also made to The, Textile Mills in Coimbatore District v. Their Workmen (2) relating to Coimbatore textile mills. In that case the industrial court considered whether bonus at a flat rate for all the mills should be awarded or whether a distinction should be made between mills and mills. It held that the mills themselves when they paid bonus observed or maintained no distinction; therefore in the peculiar circumstances of that case a uniform rate of 33-1/3 per cent. was awarded for all the mills as specially all the mills had (1) [1952] 1 L. L. J. 615.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 48 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Basti Sugar Mills Ltd vs Ram Ujagar And Others on 4 April, 1963

We have therefore come the conclusion that the words "employed by a factory" are wide enough to include workmen employed by the contractors of factory also. Mr. Pathak wanted to raise a new point based on the provisions of cl. (K) of the Standing Orders. That clause provides that a seasonal workman who has worked or, but for illness or any other unavoidable cause, would have worked under a 846 factory during the whole of the second half of the last preceding season will be employed by the factory in the current season. In view of this Mr. Pathak wants to urge that it will be difficult for the appellant to give effect to the order of reinstatement of these 21 workmen as that would mean getting rid of at least some workmen who are entitled to be employed by the factory under the provisions of cl. (K). if the facts were known to be as suggested by the learned Counsel we would have felt obliged to take note of these provisions of cl. (K) and would have thought fit to make an order as was made by this Court in similar circumstances in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1), making it clear that there 21 workmen should be re-employed in the crushing season of 1962-63 only in so for as it was possible to do so without breach of the provisions of cl. (K) of the Standing Orders. There are no materials on the record however to show how many of the workmen already employed by the Company in the crushing season of 1962-63 had actually worked in the latter half of 1961-62 season. In the written statement of the Company no such point about the difficulty of reinstatement of any of these 21 workmen because of the provisions of cl. (K) was raised. In these circumstances, we have not allowed Mr. Pathak to raise this new plea for the first time in this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 40 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1