Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.67 seconds)
Documents citing National General Mazdoor Union vs Nitin Casting Limited And Ors. on 11 July, 1990

Prakash Kashiram Sawant And Othersq vs M/S Motherson Advanced Tooling ... on 3 July, 2019

In our judgment, the decision in National General Mazdoor Union (supra) does not recognise and give full effect to the amplitude of the non-obstante clause in Section 32. In our judgment, the enumeration of the respective jurisdictional limits of the Industrial Court and Labour Court, provided in Sections 5 and 7 of the 1971 Act, when read with the non-obstante provision in Section 32 of the 1971 Act, means this : A substantive Complaint can be entertained by the Court (Labour Court or Industrial Court) only with regard to the matters provided in Section 5 or 7. If a complaint is substantively made to the Industrial Court, then by reason of Section 5(b), it has no jurisdiction to entertain a Complaint ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 19:50:22 ::: *42* wp12119/2016 relating to unfair labour practices falling under Item I of Schedule IV of the 1971 Act; conversely, a Complaint of unfair labour practice falling only under Item 1 of Schedule IV can be entertained by the Labour Court, but not any other complaint. This does not, however, mean that while trying a substantive Complaint legitimately falling within its jurisdictional purview, the Labour Court or Industrial Court is precluded from moulding the relief as required by the facts of the case."
Bombay High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

R.P. Sawant And Ors. vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Anr. on 12 July, 2001

For example, Items 1 (a), 4(a), 4(b) and 4(f), though found in Schedule II of the Act pertaining to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, do suggest that the Industrial Court does have powers of interfering with orders of termination of service passed against employees. Thus, there certainly is some area of legitimate overlap in the respective jurisdictions of the two Courts. Even in Schedule IV, we notice that, to a certain extent, the jurisdiction of interfering with orders of discharge/dismissal given to the Labour Court under Item 1 Overlap with the powers of the Industrial Court to interfere with discharge and dismissal in Item 6 of the same Schedule. For these reasons, we are unable to read the two Judgments, namely, National General Mazdoor Union (supra) and A-Z (Industrial) Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra), as excluding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to grant relief of interfering with termination of service of an employee even in a Complaint other than one falling under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the 1971 Act before the Industrial Court. If the said judgments are to be so read, then they would not be good law.
Bombay High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 38 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

Uttam Baban Abhang vs Durwani Karmachari Sahakari ... on 18 February, 2015

14. As such, section 32 is self explanatory in my view. It empowers the Court to decide connected matters, arising out of any application or complaint, referred to it for decision, under any of the provisions of the State Act. However, the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court cannot be enlarged, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Cipla (supra) and judgment of this Court in the case of National General(supra). Challenge to an order of dismissal or termination would not therefore, fall for the consideration of the Industrial Court under the State Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - R V Ghuge - Full Document
1