Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (1.55 seconds)
Documents citing South Indian Bank Ltd vs A.R. Chacko on 2 December, 1963

The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs D. J. Bahadur & Ors on 10 November, 1980

This was laid down by the Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Chacko [1964] 1 LLJ 19-AIR 1964 SC 1522, while dealing with the binding effect of an award under the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Authority in the present case was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the workmen's application on the ground that the settlement on which the workmen relied had ceased to be operative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 519 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital & ... vs Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital ... on 20 January, 2012

"Even if a notice of its intention to terminate the settlement was given by either party, the settlement did not automatically cease to be operative on the expiry of two months from the date of the notice. The legal position is that the terms of a settlement continue to govern the relations between the parties after the notice of termination and the expiry of two months thereafter, until the settlement is replaced by a valid contract or award between the parties. This was laid down by the Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Chacko, while dealing with the binding effect of an award under the provisions contained in Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act.' The Authority in the present case was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the workmen's application on the ground that the settlement on which the workmen relied had ceased to be operative."
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Air Corporation Employees Union (Regn ... vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2020

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.25568 of 2021 -108- compliance with the provisions of this section would undoubtedly raise a serious dispute between the parties so as to give jurisdiction to the tribunal to give the award. If the appellant wanted to withdraw the Assam compensatory allowance it should have given notice to the workmen, negotiated the matter with them and arrived at some settlement instead of withdrawing the compensatory allowance overnight.” (emphasis added) This ruling shows (a) that unilateral variation by the management is an exercise in futility, and (b) an award or settlement must take the place of the contract sought to be varied. We have a similar situation in the present case vis-a-vis the notice under Section 9-A and the ruling in the Indian Oil case [South Indian Bank Ltd v. A R Chacko, AIR 1964 SC 1522 : (1964) 5 SCR 625 : (1964) 1 LLJ 19; 26 FJR 64] is a helpful guide.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Air Corporation Employees Union (Regn ... vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2020

compliance with the provisions of this section would undoubtedly raise a serious dispute between the parties so as to give jurisdiction to the tribunal to give the award. If the appellant wanted to withdraw the Assam compensatory allowance it should have given notice to the workmen, negotiated the matter with them and arrived at some settlement instead of withdrawing the compensatory allowance overnight.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.25568 of 2021 -110- (emphasis added) This ruling shows (a) that unilateral variation by the management is an exercise in futility, and (b) an award or settlement must take the place of the contract sought to be varied. We have a similar situation in the present case vis-a-vis the notice under Section 9-A and the ruling in the Indian Oil case [South Indian Bank Ltd v. A R Chacko, AIR 1964 SC 1522 : (1964) 5 SCR 625 : (1964) 1 LLJ 19; 26 FJR 64] is a helpful guide.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 2 - V Parthiban - Full Document

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs Labour Court And Ors. on 20 May, 1994

Learned counsel for the workmen by placing reliance on a decision of Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A.R. Chacko (supra) argued that even if an award has ceased to be in operation or ceased to be binding on the parties under the; provision of Section 10(6) of the Central Act, 1947 it will continue to have its effect as a contract between the parties as made on Industrial Adjudication.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - S K Keshote - Full Document

Triveni Engineering And Industries ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 2 April, 2007

12. The settlement is binding on the parties and would remain in force for one year. This means that the settlement cannot be terminated by a unilateral act of one party before the expiry of the period of one year but could be done after the expiry of the period of one year. Further, even after the expiry of the period of one year, the settlement does not lapse nor does it terminates automatically but continues to remain binding on the parties till such time as the settlement is revoked, superseded or modified. The reason is that the settlement does not loose its effect after the period of operation and continues to have its effect as a contract between the parties. There is another aspect of the matter. Section 14-A of the Act provides prosecution against a person who commits a breach of the settlement during the period when the settlement was in force. After the expiry of the period, the settlement continues to remain binding as it creates a contract between a parties. This is precisely what the Supreme Court held in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A.R. Chacko namely,-
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - T Agarwala - Full Document

The Management Of vs A.M.Sekar (Died) on 25 September, 2014

37. The learned Senior counsel in this aspect relied on the decisions in the cases of Lloyds Bank Limited vs. Panna Lal Gupta & Ors., (supra) and South Indian Bank Ltd., vs. A.R.Chacko (supra). Certainly, the above said contention of the learned Senior counsel is a matter of factual aspect which has to be gone into and decided only by analysing all the material evidence let in by both parties. We have already found that such consideration is absent in this case.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document

Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs Smt. Sunita B. Vatsaraj on 18 June, 2007

In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A.R. Chacko (Supra), the question before the court was whether the respondent ceased to be a workman on his promotion and appointment as accountant. The court drew distinction between the accountants who were really officers and the accountants who were merely clerks with some supervisory duties and held that the labour court on proper consideration of the evidence had rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent was merely a senior clerk doing mainly clerical duties and by mere designation as accountant he would not cease to be a workman.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - D G Karnik - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next