Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 142 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading Limited ... on 3 April, 1986

Prakash Murlidhar Dalal vs Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & ... on 17 January, 1996

The decision in S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees' Union v. S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited is not of much assistance to the workmen. The management in that case was running its business in pharmaceuticals at three places. The Pharmaceutical Division was at Worli, the Laboratory and Dyes Division was at Trombay and the Marketing and Sales Division was at Churchgate. In 1984 the company which was managing the said three divisions of business was sold out. As the buyers proposed to handle the future sales of the company through their own distribution channels, they found that the services of the staff working at the Churchgate office were no longer required. Therefore, the management closed down the office at Churchgate. The question was whether there was functional integrality between the office at the Churchgate and the factory at Trombay. This Court on a consideration of the material before it in that case, held that the functions of the Churchgate division and the Trombay factory were neither separate nor independent but were so integrally connected as to constitute the Churchgate and the Trombay factory into one establishment, because the Churchgate division used to purchase the raw material required by the Trombay factory for producing or processing the goods, it used to market and sell the goods so manufactured or processed by the factory and it also used to disburse the salary and other employment benefits and maintain accounts, etc. of the workmen. These were considered to be integral parts of the manufacturing activities of the factory at Trombay, because the factory could never have functioned independently without the Churchgate division being there. It is not the case of the workmen in the present case that the II Unit could not continue to function after the closure of the I Unit. As already mentioned, the II Unit is continuing to function as usual even now notwithstanding the stoppage of the activities at the I Unit. The question of application of S. 25-G of the Act arises only when the services of the workmen are retrenched.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 7 - R M Lodha - Full Document

The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 27 September, 2010

16. The decision reported in 1986-1-LLJ 490 SC  S.G.CHEMICALS AND DYES TRADING EMPLOYEES' UNION v. S.G.CHEMICALS AND DYES TRADING LIMITED AND ANR, reiterated the law declared earlier on the issue of functional integrality. Dealing with the definition of "Industrial Establishment" or "Undertaking" and to the relevancy of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court held as to what constitutes "one establishment". The Supreme Court held that the word "Undertaking" in the Industrial Disputes Act is to be understood in an ordinary meaning.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Maya Press Mazdoor Sangh Etc. vs Uppar Shramayukt And Ors. on 3 December, 2004

Thus, principles laid down in the case of S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union v. S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited and Anr., 1986 (2) SCC 624, could not have been extended qua the petitioners mechanically. Further once it was contended that though both the companies have separate independent entity in law but if corporate veil was lifted, it would be amply clear that corporate personality was being used as cloak for saving themselves from the clutches of the statutory provisions as envisaged under Section 6-W of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, then serious exercise for investigation of such fact had to take place, after lifting corporate veil for satisfying as to who are in charge of the affairs of the company and though both have separate legal entity in law, but for all practical purposes, they are one and the same, and corporate personality is being misused as a cloak for improper conduct Additional Labour Commissioner, Allahabad has no authority to adjudicate this issue, and Industrial Tribunal only, could have adjudicated this issue.
Allahabad High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs Indian Gum Industrial Ltd. & Another on 1 June, 2000

The decision in S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union v. S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited, is not of much assistance to the workmen. The management in that case was running its business in pharmaceuticals at three places. The pharmaceutical Division was at Worli, the Laboratory and Dyes Division was at Trombay and the Marketing and Sales Division was at Churchgate. In 1984 the company which was managing the said three divisions of business was sold out. As the buyers proposed to handle the future sales of the company through their own distribution channels, they found that the services of the staff working at the Churchgate office were not longer required. Therefore, the management closed down the office at Churchgate. The question was whether there was functional integrality between the office at the Churchgate and the factory at Trombay. This Court on a consideration of the material before it in that case, held that the functions of the Churchgate division and the Trombay factory were neither separate nor independent but were so integrally connected as to constitute the Churchgate and the Trombay factory into one establishment, because the Churchgate division used to purchase the raw material required by the Trombay factory for producing or processing the goods, it used to market and sell the goods so manufactured or processed by that factory and it also used to disburse the salary and other employment benefits and maintain accounts, etc., of the workmen. These were considered to be integral parts of the manufacturing activities of the factory at Trombay, because the factory could never have functioned independently without the Churchgate division being there. It is not the case of the workmen in the present case that the II Unit could not continue to function after the closure of the I Unit. As already mentioned, the II Unit is continuing to function as usual even now notwithstanding the stoppage of the activities at the I unit. The question of application of section 25G of the Act arises only when the services of the workmen are retrenched.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - R J Kochar - Full Document

M/S. Oswal Petrochemicals vs Government Of Maharashtra & Others on 2 July, 1997

The Division Bench noted that the word "Agreement" in Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Act is not viewed strictly in the sense in which it is understood in the law of contract, although under the said law also, as held by the Supreme Court in its judgment in S. G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union v. S.G. Chemicals Dyes Trading Ltd. & another, reported in 1986(1) C.L.R. 360 and some of the provisions of law creating rights, obligations and duties can be held to be "implied terms" of the contract. The Division Bench thereafter further noted that, "it is pertinent to see that strict concept of an "Agreement" viz. that there should be identity of mind between the employee and the employer with regard to the conditions of service applicable to the employee is absent in such collective bargaining agreements arrived at between the Trade Union representing its members, or if it is a representative Union having authority under the above Acts to represent all the employees". It thereafter proceeds to observe "It is thus quite clear that certain terms and conditions of service which are regulated by the provisions of the statutes can form implied terms of individual contract of employment particularly keeping in view the development of industrial law. The object of the Act which is a piece of Social Legislation is to prevent the mischief of the employers in not carrying out the obligations upon them under the agreements, settlements and awards and therefore the word "Agreement" used in Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Act cannot be construed in narrow sense as otherwise it would defeat its very object".
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Modistone Limited vs Secretary (Labour) & Anr. on 29 July, 1999

17. These averments even if taken as correct are not sufficient to establish functional integrality. Thus the above judgment is S.G. Chemicals case (supra) was based upon the findings of functional integrality between the two units and the findings were based inter-alia on the fact that the Trombay and Churchgate Divisions were situated in the same city. Accordingly, the said judgment cannot come to the aid of the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that functional integrality has not sufficiently been pleaded or established by the petitioner in the present case except to aver that the goods come from Bombay factory and the cessation of production has led to a situation when there are no stocks in the Delhi unit. It is very clear that the petitioner's case is that its Bombay factory being the manufacturing unit is the nucleus of the operations of the petitionerCompany as the tyres manufactured in the factory at Bombay are sent to various district establishments of the petitioner-Company in different parts of the country. It is also averred that in fact these district estab-lishments are like depots of the manufactured products. These in my view are not sufficient to establish functional integrality. I am unable to agree with this plea of the petitioner as the petitioner is unable to establish the functional integrality of the Bombay factory & the Delhi Office.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - M Mudgal - Full Document

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Member on 21 October, 2011

(xii) In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in S.G. Chemicals' case, even if the particular part of an establishment, an undertaking of an industry, or the business activity of an employer, is not an industrial establishment, that is a "factory", as defined under Section 25L(a)(i) of the ID Act read with Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, still it can be shown that it is an undertaking of an industrial establishment, as contemplated by Section 25-O of the ID Act. (Para 48)
Bombay High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 0 - R K Deshpande - Full Document

Bombay Tyres International Ltd. vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Anr. on 10 February, 1994

33. As referred to by me above, this petition is against an interlocutory order and it is always desirable not to draw any final confusions at this stage and to see whether the observations made by the learned Member of the Industrial Court are, prima facie, sustainable or other wise and to find out whether the prima facie view taken by the learned Member of the Industrial Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. I have not dealt with exhaustive submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side since I was dealing with the matter at the interlocutory state. However, I am satisfied on the basis of the material which is on the record that the view taken by the learned Member at this interlocutory stage is permanently-plausible view of the matter that is, prima facie, the learned Member is right in holding that the company has indulged into unfair labour practice under various items referred to in the complaint. On consideration of the material, I member of the Industrial Court is clearly quite plausible and possible conclusion and thus as held in case of S. G. Chemical and Dyes Trading Employee's Union v. S. G. Chemical and Dyes Trading Ltd. (Supra) reported in 1986 I CLR 360, this would be an unfair labour practice in any event under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. In the result the petition fails and the Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next