Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 165 (3.43 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd vs Shankarprasad on 19 July, 1999

R.K. Shinde And Ors. vs Shekoba Auto Pvt. Ltd., A Company ... on 26 November, 2007

15. As contended by Mr. C.U. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1, we do not find that the Supreme Court has deviated from the view taken in S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union's case (supra) while dealing with the case of Lokmat Newspapers Private Limited v. Shankarprasad (supra). On the other hand, the Supreme Court has Page 2713 reiterated its view and has considered whether the retrenchment order was held to be illegal being contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. One of the points which arose for consideration of their Lordship was whether the impugned retrenchment order amounted to the commission of unfair labour practice by the appellant as per Schedule IV item 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of the Maharashtra Act (MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. While dealing with the issue the Supreme Court has held as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 4 - J N Patel - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 November, 2004

In view of this clear and categorical declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be neither possible nor proper to entertain the argument that the earlier judgments in UMAJI KESHAO (supra) or in LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS (supra) which were expressly referred by the Supreme Court in KANHAIYALAL (supra) purported to declare or pronounce a different proposition of law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - D H Waghela - Full Document

Madhukar Chandrabhan Mohite vs Balkrishna Govind Sulakhe on 6 August, 1999

In M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Put Ltd. v. Shankarprasad (supra), the proceedings arose out of a complaint filed by the respondent in the Labour Court under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act') alleging unfair labour practice by the appellant employer. During the pendency of the said complaint, the State Government acting on a failure report of the Conciliation Officer made a reference of the industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer contended before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, that reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act was incomplete and was barred by the provisions of Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. This contention was upheld by the Industrial Court and the reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act was disposed of. The complaint filed by the respondent to the Labour Court under the M.R.T. U- and P.U.L.P. Act was dismissed by the Labour Court. The respondent filed a Revision before the Industrial Tribunal, which was dismissed upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employer had not engaged in any unfair labour practice. The respondent then filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 challenging the decisions rendered by both the Courts below. The writ petition was rejected by the Single Judge and thereafter Letters Patent Appeal was filed. The appeal was allowed and it was held that the appellant had engaged in unfair labour practice and hence, it was directed to pay back wages since, in the meanwhile, the respondent had got superannuated. The order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Apex Court by the employer and the question arose whether the L.P.A. was competent.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 5 - R J Kochar - Full Document

The Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs The Labour Court And Ors. on 20 November, 2002

In Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad (supra), a two-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 9A of the Act and Item 10 of the Fourth Schedule and after making reference to the earlier decisions in the cases of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ram Mohan Ray and Ors. (supra) and Workmen of the Food Corporation of India v. Food Corporation of India (supra) held as under;-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sudershana Gupta And Ors vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 6 June, 2013

6. So far as the law on the matter is concerned, as to whether an appeal would lie against an order made in writ petition before the High Court challenging an order of the labour court, this Court in its decision in Lokmat Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Shankarprasad, stated that if a Single Judge exercises jurisdiction under Article 226, Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable, but if the jurisdiction is exercised under Article 227 it will not be maintainable. But with an explanation that if the Single Judge of the High Court in considering the petition under Article 226 or Article
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next