Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing General Electric Coy. Of India vs Fifth Industrial Tribunal Of West ... on 28 May, 1985

Cesc Limited & Ors vs Prem Chand Jaiswal on 17 June, 2020

44. U.C. Banerjee, J.( As His Lordship then was) in General Electric Co. of India Ltd. v. The Fifth Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal, reported in 1985 (2) CHN 417, relying upon the observations in the case of Hind Tin Industries (supra), observed as under, "While it is true that while dealing with the matter in Graphite India's case (84 CWN 239) this Court's attention was not drawn to the decisions referred to earlier in this judgment, but in my view a Judge, sitting singly, is bound by the Division Bench judgment and as such I am unable to express any other opinion but to follow the opinion expressed in the case of Graphite India.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - H Bhattacharya - Full Document

Ganesh Rajan Servai vs Bennett Coleman And Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 1 February, 1988

The same was the view taken by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in The General Electric Co. of India Ltd. and Ors. v. The Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and Ors. [1988-(1) CLR 80]. In my view, both these judgments are not germane and relevant to the issues involved in the present case as it is not the case of the petitioners that the findings recorded in a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act will operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding under Section 10 or Section 33-A of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ganesh Rajan Servai, Vilas Pandurang ... vs Bennett Coleman And Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 29 January, 1986

The same was the view taken by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the General Electric Co. of India Ltd. & others v. The Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & others, 1988(1) C.L.R. 80. In my view, both these judgments are not germane and relevant to the issue involved in the present case as it is not the case of the petitioners that the findings recorded in proceeding under section 33(2)(b) of the Act will operate as res-judicata in a subsequent proceeding under section 10 or section 33-A of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Farid Hossain vs National Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 21 May, 2004

Further relying upon a judgment in General Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and Anr., reported in 1987(2) CLJ 305, it was submitted that the order of the respondent No. 1 does not operate as a res judicata so as to preclude the petitioner from having the matter referred to an Industrial Tribunal under Section 2A read with Section 10 of the Act preceded by conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Pal - Full Document

Sh. Parmanand vs M/S Delhi Transport Corporation on 29 April, 2008

It was incumbent upon the workman to take leave only when it was sanctioned by the competent authority. The workman has failed to bring any document on record to suggest that his leave applications were duly sanctioned. AR for the management has also pointed out that vide order dated 3.1.02, the then Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Shri B.B. Choudhary had granted approval under section 33(2)(b) to remove the workman from service and he had also decided the enquiry issue in favour of the management and against the workman vide order dated 6.9.01. He has relied upon 1986 LLJ II High Court of Calcutta General Electric Coy of India vs. Fifth Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal and 6 others, wherein the court held that "It is now well settled that the doctrine of res-judicata has its application in full force in regard to Industrial matters. A decision given by a competent Labour Court would operate as a bar in the trial of the same issue in the subsequent proceedings for constructive res-judicata. So far as the validity of the domestic enquiry is concerned, the findings ought to be treated as conclusive and have a binding effect in subsequent proceedings."
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1