Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Association Of Chemical Workers vs Wahid Ali And Ors. on 15 January, 1979

Texmaco Ltd. vs Appellate Authority And Ors. on 28 November, 2000

In Association of Chemical Workers v. Wahid Ali and Ors., reported in 1980-I-LLJ-276 (Bom-DB), the Bombay High Court considered the role of concliation officer and observe that the conciliation officer would intervene when he finds that the settlement would be fair and reasonable and had been arrived at bonafide. Negotiations between the parties were admittedly held so that by reason of such closure, the employment opportunities of the workmen may not come to an end. No industrial dispute was raised although one existed. The backdrop of events, thus, has to be considered for the purpose of construction of the agreement.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Partha Sarathi Rej And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 1 October, 1996

In support of his contentions, Mr. Sengupta cited decisions (i) as Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Association of Chemical Workers v. Wahid Ali and Ors., reported in (1980-I-LLJ-276) (ii) a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, reported in (1991-I-LLJ-46) (SC) and (iii) unreported Single Bench decision of our High Court in C.R. No 14803 (W) of 1984 (Kalidas Biswas and Ors. v. Burn Standard & Co. Ltd. and Ors.).
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mico Employees' Association vs State Of Karnataka on 29 March, 1982

17. However, Mr. G. B. Pai, learned Counsel for the Management, placed strong reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Association of Chemical Workers v. Wahid Ali and Ors., 1980 I LLJ 276. In that case, the Conciliation Officer, in order to settle the dispute between the employer and the employees held a meeting with the petitioner-union on 7-3-1978. There was then another meeting between them on 14-3-1978 at which the employer and the other rival union were also present. Justification statements in respect of their demands were filed at that meeting. At the meeting held on 3-4-1978, the Conciliation Officer himself indicated as to which of the demands made by the first petitioner-union and respondent-3 - union were admitted by him for conciliation. A notice in writing to that effect was served by him both on the first petitioner-union and on the employer and the rival union. Thereafter, he had meetings with the employer, the first petitioner on 14th and 17th April 1978 at which he tried to explore the possibility of a settlement. Then on the adjourned date, he had a meeting with the employer and the other rival union, and that meeting was fruitful and resulted in a settlement between the employer and the rival union. These facts go to show that the Conciliation Officer who initiated the conciliation on 17-4-1978 continued his efforts till 22-4-1978 and brought about a settlement in the course of conciliation between the employer and the rival union on that date. The said settlement was held to be a settlement in the course of conciliation by the Bombay High Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., Employees' ... vs Asst. Commissioner Of Labour (Hq.), ... on 8 December, 1983

In support of this contention, learned counsel replied on the decision reported in Association of Chemical Workers v. Wahid Ali [1980-I L.L.J. 277]. In that case, one of the contentions was that any settlement by the employer with only one of the two negotiating unions, cannot be said to be a settlement in the course of conciliation. The question that arose for consideration in that case was whether such a settlement can be said to be effective settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation so as to bind the workmen who are not members of the third respondent-Union including those who happen to be the members of the petitioner-Union. The Bench of the Bombay High Court in that case observed that the provisions of S. 18(3) are a complete answer of this contention and that S. 2(p) read with S. 18 contemplates two categories of settlement, one arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings and the other arrived at otherwise than in conciliation proceedings. The Bench held that settlement arrived as as a result of the conciliation efforts of the Labour Officer would bind all the workmen of the first respondent who happened to be members of the petitioner-Union even though they were not agreeable to the terms thereof. Proceeding further, the Bench observed :
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M/S Polypharm Pvt. Ltd vs Shri. Rangnath S. Iyer on 7 February, 2017

sat 6/15 wp 1128-2007.doc This clause is designed to deal with certain difficulties which are implicit in collective bargaining. The body of the bargaining workmen may not be a fixed body, it may be floating; even within a fixed body, all may not support a particular settlement; there may be rival unions whose members may not agree with each other; there may be workmen who may not choose to be members of any union and may thus stand outside the process of collective bargaining. This clause is introduced by the legislature to take care of these myriad situations and make any settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings (or any award passed on a reference) binding even on indifferent or unwilling workmen (or those who did not join the reference). After all the whole thrust of the exercise is to ensure industrial peace. (See, the judgment of our court in Association of Chemical Workers vs. Wahid Ali6.) This does not, however, imply that the benefit of an award intended for particular workmen or class of workmen is available to other workmen or class of workmen. It is one thing to say that an award meant for a particular class of workmen is binding on all members of that class, but quite another that an award meant for particular workmen or class of them can be availed of by others for whom it is not meant.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S C Gupte - Full Document
1