Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Tata Consulting Engineers And ... vs Tata Consulting Engineers And Anr. on 17 January, 2002

Hawkins Cookers Mazdoor Union Through ... vs Labour Commissioner And Ors. on 7 August, 2007

In Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates Staff Union (supra) the Bombay High Court held that the employees covered by the settlement under Sub-section (i) of Section 8 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 form an independent class and if certain benefits have been given to this class, no complaint can be made by the members of the other union.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

The Management vs The General Secretary on 15 November, 2016

5. Sri S.N.Murthy, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the wages was increased for a period of 3 5 years (2015-2018) to the workmen, who have signed the individual settlements. He submitted that the same benefits cannot be claimed by the respondent, in respect of the workmen who have not signed the settlements. He contended that interim relief cannot be granted as Tribunal has not found prima facie case in favour of the members of the Union, whose cause is being espoused in the case. Reliance was placed on the decision in TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND ASSOCIATES STAFF UNION Vs. TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND ANOTHER, 2002-II-LLJ 323. He contended that the members of the Union having decided to seek adjudication of their demands by the Tribunal, till the Award is passed, there cannot be any interim relief in their favour. He contended that the impugned order is arbitrary.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A N Gowda - Full Document

K. D. Joshi Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs K. D. Joshi Kamgar Sanghatana on 6 March, 2026

In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on the judgments in Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates Staff Union v. Tata Consulting Engineers and Another, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1408; Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v. Their Workmen, (1981) 4 SCC 627; and Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates' Staff Union v. Tata Sons Ltd. and Another, 2002 (1) L.L.N. 781.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A B Borkar - Full Document

K D Joshi Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. ... vs K D Joshi Kamgar Sanghatna on 6 March, 2026

In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on the judgments in Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates Staff Union v. Tata Consulting Engineers and Another, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1408; Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v. Their Workmen, (1981) 4 SCC 627; and Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates' Staff Union v. Tata Sons Ltd. and Another, 2002 (1) L.L.N. 781.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A B Borkar - Full Document

Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs M/S. Lloyds Line Pipes Ltd. And Anr on 21 February, 2020

7. Learned Counsel is not right there. In the very first place, it is important to note that when the offer was made by the Respondent establishment originally, i.e. before the complaint was filed, and also during the pendency of the complaint calling upon the concerned workmen to accept the settlement, what was communicated was that the settlement would be extended to them subject to their accepting the settlement. They were never put to notice that the settlement in that case would be made applicable to them only with effect from the date of their respective acceptances and not for the anterior period. Once this communication is accepted and acted upon by the workmen by issuing letters of acceptance, thereby changing their position to their detriment, it is not permissible to the Respondent employer to then go back on their communication and insist on a condition of making the settlement applicable only with effect from the date of their respective acceptances. That would not only be a travesty of justice but it would have the effect of undermining the very objective of industrial adjudication, which is maintenance of industrial peace. One set of workers, in that case, would get benefits of the settlement, whilst the others, though they eventually give up their case and accept the settlement, would be denied the benefits and that despite having put in the same work as the former did during the interregnum. That, I am afraid, is neither conducive to industrial peace nor consistent with justice, equity or good conscience. It would neither be in keeping with the policy behind industrial adjudication nor with the law of industrial adjudication.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S C Gupte - Full Document

Sh. Shiv Prasad vs M/S N.D.M.C on 17 November, 2007

06. In view of the above observations and the evidence brought on record, I am of the view that claim of overtime is not maintainable under section 33-C(2) as there is no prior adjudication of the same nor is it an admitted claim. I am supported in my opinion by Tata Consulting Engineers & Associates Staff Union vs. Tata Consulting Engineers and others 1996 LLR 708, wherein it was held that Section 33-C(2) is only for computing the dues that an employee is entitled in law. 9 Jurisdiction under section 33-C(2), as has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court, does not extend to the adjudication of any right which is claimed by the employee. The claim of overtime by workman under section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act cannot be entertained by the court since it is not based on existing right.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hawkins Cookers Mazdor Union And ... vs Conciliation Officer And Another on 19 March, 2013

The Court finds that a recognized union is eligible to protect the legitimate interest of its members and enter into a settlement in the best interest of its workers. At the same time, it does not mean that the existence of a recognized union in the establishment would take away the right of a workman or a group of workers to enter into any settlement with the management. The Court is of the opinion that a settlement can be arrived at between the management and group of workers, who may not be in the majority and such settlement, which was arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings would only be binding to such workers, who were signatories to the settlement. This view of the Court is fortified by various decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, the National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2000 (84) FLR 162, Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates Staff Union Vs. Tata Consulting Engineers and Another 2002 LLR 433 and ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India J.T. 2005 (9) SC 413.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - T Agarwala - Full Document
1