Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Madras Aluminium Co. vs Regional Labour Commissioner And Ors. on 1 July, 1998

The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 7 November, 2023

8. Though Mr.M.Vijayan, learned counsel for the appellant management, would submit that they would submit documents in support of their contention, we are of the view, that in the light of the decision of this Court in Madras Aluminium Company Limited v. Labour Court, Coimbatore, and Another, 1992 II LLN 101, the documents, that were not marked before the Labour Court, cannot be relied upon by any of the parties, unless the parties accept the genuineness of the same. In this regard, we passed an order on 18.08.2023 and the relevant portion of the same is extracted below :
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

Gujarat Electricity Board vs Ballkhan D. Joya on 29 February, 2000

23. As against the above, learned Counsel for the respondent seeks to rely upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Madras Aluminum Company Ltd. v. Labour Court, Coimbatore and Anr. reported at 1992 (1) LLN 1047. This is a decision based on an interpretation of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and holds that a trainee is a workman and that the termination of his service at the end of period of training without any enquiry or notice is illegal. However, what cannot be ignored is that this is a decision based on a joint interpretation of Sections 18 and 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and Rule 5 of the Apprentices Rules, 1961. Strictly speaking since the respondent was not an Apprentice within the meaning of the said Act, this decision would have no direct application of the facts of the case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.Rajamanickam vs The Managing Director on 1 June, 2023

In the case of MADRAS ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED v. LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE AND ANOTHER (1992 II LLN 101), it has been held that any plea or material not produced before the Court below, cannot be sought to be introduced and tested before this Court for the first time. In view of the above judgment, we find that the appellant/petitioner, having failed to establish the charges before the Labour Court, the fact finding authority, by producing the CBI report which I sought to be introduced now and which were very much available by that time, this Court, sitting in appeal, cannot come to a different conclusion that the order of the learned Single Judge needs interference or the award of the Industrial Tribunal is perverse.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - J S Prasad - Full Document

T.Rajamanickam vs The Managing Director on 1 June, 2023

In the case of MADRAS ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED v. LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE AND ANOTHER (1992 II LLN 101), it has been held that any plea or material not produced before the Court below, cannot be sought to be introduced and tested before this Court for the first time. In view of the above judgment, we find that the appellant/petitioner, having failed to establish the charges before the Labour Court, the fact finding authority, by producing the CBI report which I sought to be introduced now and which were very much available by that time, this Court, Page No.17 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25880 of 2011 sitting in appeal, cannot come to a different conclusion that the order of the learned Single Judge needs interference or the award of the Industrial Tribunal is perverse.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - J S Prasad - Full Document

Uco Bank vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2017

In the case of MADRAS ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED v. LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE AND ANOTHER (1992 II LLN 101), it has been held that any plea or material not produced before the court below, cannot be sought to be introduced and tested before this court for the first time. In view of the above judgment, we find that the appellant/petitioner, having failed to establish the charges before the Labour Court, the fact finding authority, by producing the CBI report which is sought to be introduced now and which were very much available by that time, this court, sitting in appeal, cannot come to a different conclusion that the order of the learned Single Judge needs interference or the award of the Industrial Tribunal is perverse.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - H G Ramesh - Full Document
1