Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 183 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Bombay Union Of Journalists & Ors vs The State Of Bombay & Anr on 19 December, 1963

Hemant Kumar And Ors vs Govt Of India Ministry Of Labour And ... on 5 March, 2024

All these relevant and vital aspects have to be examined by the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating upon the reference made to it. In other words, the reasons given by the Government would tantamount to adjudication which is impermissible. That is the function of the Tribunal and the Government cannot arrogate to itself that function. Therefore if the grounds on which or the reasons for which the Government declined to make a reference under Section 10 are irrelevant, extraneous or not germane to the determination, it is well-settled that the party aggrieved thereby would be entitled to move the Court for a writ of mandamus. (See Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay [AIR 1964 SC 1617 : (1964) 6 SCR 22 : (1964) 1 LLJ 351 : 26 FJR 32] .) It is equally well-settled that where the Government purports to give reasons which tantamount to adjudication and refuses to make a reference, the appropriate Government could be said to have acted on extraneous, irrelevant grounds or grounds not germane to the determination and a writ of mandamus would lie calling upon the Government to reconsider its decision. In this case a clear case for grant of writ of mandamus is made out."
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Prabhu Dayal vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 20 March, 1987

In Bombay Union of Journalists and Ors. v. The State of Bombay (supra) their Lordships have held that "it is open to the State to take the broad features into consideration while exercising jurisdiction under Section 10(1) of the Act. If the dispute in question raises a question of law the appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final conclusion on the said question of law because that would normally lie within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. Similarly on disputed questions of law the appropriate Government cannot purport to reach final conclusions, for that again could be the province of the Industrial Tribunal". This shows that their Lordships limited the jurisdiction of the Government in dealing with the cases and the finality was given only to the awards of the Industrial Tribunal.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajit Kumar Barat vs State Of West Bengal on 24 July, 1998

The case of Bombay Unton of Journalists v. State of Bombay : AIR 1964 SC 1617 was on the discretionary power of the State Government under section 12(5). It was held that even if the Government formed the opinion that there was an Industrial dispute it could still refuse a reference under section 12(5) in its discretion considering the prima facie merits of the dispute. The dispute referred to is not the dispute as to the existence of the Industrial dispute but the merits of an existing Industrial dispute. For example, the Government may refuse to refer the Industrial dispute if the claim made is patently frivolous or clearly belated. But no adjudication of the Industrial dispute Itself could be made by the Government (ibid).
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R Pal - Full Document

Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By The ... on 1 December, 1987

After holding that while exercising power of making a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, the appropriate Government performs an administrative act and not a judicial or quasi-judicial act, the Supreme Court proceeded to state that the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of lis. The Supreme Court made a reference to its earlier decisions in State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan (supra) and Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay (supra) and held that the reasons given by the Government were extraneous and irrelevant as they would tantamount to adjudication of the dispute. It would be necessary to extract the following passage in the judgment of the Supreme Court (1985-II-LLJ-187 at 191-192) :
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 12 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

Government Of India & Ors vs Sapna on 29 May, 2023

In M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. State of M.P. [(1985) 2 SCC 103 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 409] taking note of the decision in the case of Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay [AIR 1964 SC 1617] wherein it was held that the appropriate government is precluded from considering even prima facie the merits of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5), or not, this Court held that the Court had made it clear in the same judgment that it was a province of the Industrial Tribunal to decide the disputed questions of facts. This Court made the following observations :
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

The Management Of Binny Ltd. (B & C Mills) vs The Govt. Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 12 December, 1987

After holding that while exercising power of making a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, the appropriate Government performs an administrative act and not a judicial or quasi-judicial act, the Supreme Court proceeded to state that the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of lis. The Supreme Court made a reference to its earlier decisions in State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan (supra) and Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay (supra) and held that the reasons given by the Government were extraneous and irrelevant as they would tantamount to adjudication of the dispute. It would be necessary to extract the following passage in the judgment of the Supreme Court (1985-II-LLJ-187 at 191-192) :
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh S/O Shri vs State Of H.P. & Others on 30 March, 2022

In Bombay Union of Journalists and others vs. the State of Bombay and another, AIR 1964 SC 1617, the Supreme Court held that while considering the question as to whether a reference should be made under Section 12(5), the appropriate Government has to act under Section 10(1) of the Act which confers discretion on the Government either to refer the dispute or not to refer it. Under Section 12(5) of the Act, the appropriate Government is under an obligation to record reasons for not making the reference. However, when the matter involves a question of law and disputed question of fact, the appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final decision on the same as it is a subject matter to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, but it cannot be said that the appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie merit of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised. It was further ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 35 held that if the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make reference.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 236 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh S/O Shri vs State Of H.P. & Others on 30 March, 2022

In Bombay Union of Journalists and others vs. the State of Bombay and another, AIR 1964 SC 1617, the Supreme Court held that while considering the question as to whether a reference should be made under Section 12(5), the appropriate Government has to act under Section 10(1) of the Act which confers discretion on the Government either to refer the dispute or not to refer it. Under Section 12(5) of the Act, the appropriate Government is under an obligation to record reasons for not making the reference. However, when the matter involves a question of law and disputed question of fact, the appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final decision on the same as it is a subject matter to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, but it cannot be said that the appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie merit of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised. It was further ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:20 :::CIS 35 held that if the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make reference.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh S/O Shri vs State Of H.P. & Others on 30 March, 2022

In Bombay Union of Journalists and others vs. the State of Bombay and another, AIR 1964 SC 1617, the Supreme Court held that while considering the question as to whether a reference should be made under Section 12(5), the appropriate Government has to act under Section 10(1) of the Act which confers discretion on the Government either to refer the dispute or not to refer it. Under Section 12(5) of the Act, the appropriate Government is under an obligation to record reasons for not making the reference. However, when the matter involves a question of law and disputed question of fact, the appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final decision on the same as it is a subject matter to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, but it cannot be said that the appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie merit of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised. It was further ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:25 :::CIS 35 held that if the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make reference.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next