Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 212 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Workmen Of The Straw Board ... vs M/S. Straw Board Manufacturing Company ... on 21 March, 1974

Zaheer Khan vs Percept D' Mark (India) Private Limited ... on 19 December, 2003

"(10) As to what constitutes restraint of trade is summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd ed.) Vol. 38, at page 15 and onwards. It is a general principle of the common law that a person is entitled to exercise his lawful trade or calling as and when he wills and the law has always regarded jealously and interference with trade, even at the risk of interference with freedom of contract as it is public policy to oppose all restraints upon liberty of individual action which are injuries to the interests of the State. This principle is not confined to restraint of trade in the ordinary meaning of the word "trade" and includes restraints on the right of being employed. The Court takes a far stricter view of covenants between master and servant than it does of similar covenants between vendor and purchaser or in partnership agreements. An employer, for instance, is not entitled to protect himself against competition on the part of an employee after the employment has ceased but a purchaser of a business is entitled to protect himself against competition per se on the part of the vendor. This principle is based on the footing that an employer has no legitimate interest in preventing an employee after he leaves his service from entering the service of a competitor merely on the ground that he is a competitor. Kores Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Kolok Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1959 Ch 108 at p. 126. The attitude of the Courts as regards public policy, however has not been inflexible. Decisions on public policy have been subject to change and development with the change in trade and in economic thought and the general principle once applicable to agreements in restraints of trade have been considerably modified by later decisions. The rule now is that restraints whether general or partial may be good if they are reasonable. A restraint upon freedom of contract must be shown to be reasonably necessary for the purpose of freedom of trade.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - R M Lodha - Full Document

A.P. Shah And Ors. vs B.M. Institute Of Mental Health, ... on 26 July, 1985

In Workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Straw Board Mfg. Co. Ltd. , the company closed down one of its units on the ground of non-availability of Bagasse which is the raw material for the manufacture of strawboard and terminated the services of the workmen of its unit by stages between May 7 and July 28, 1967. The first batch consisted of 98 workmen whose dispute was the subject matter of the reference before the Tribunal. One of the points of reference was that the stoppage of work by the employer and the consequent non-employment of the workers amounted to lay off/retrenchment/lock out, or whether it should be treated as legitimate closure. The Tribunal found that there was a complete closure of an independent industrial unit and the employer could validly close one unit without closing the entire establishment. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court referred to the finding of fact made by the Tribunal that the closure was as a result of nonavailability of the raw material and, therefore, held that the workmen cannot question the motive of the closure once the closure has taken place in fact. The view of the Court expressed thereafter is instructive. In paragraph 16 it has been held as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Akhandanand Kelavani Utejak Mandal vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 25 June, 1997

In my opinion, the principle laid down in the aforesaid case has no application whatsoever. Firstly, it shall have to be kept in mind that the test prescribed for testing as to whether various establishments are one establishment or they are required to be clubbed together under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are obviously different from the test to be applied for the purpose of determining as to whether closure of one unit would constitute closure of entire establishment. The purposes of the two statutes are different. When an employer makes an attempt to close the unit with a view to relieve the workers or employees and the employees claim the right to continue in another establishment of the same employer, the ratio of the aforesaid decision shall have application. The principle of law which is laid down in the context and provisions of altogether a different statute, whose purpose and object is also different, cannot be blindly applied to the provision of a statute which is enacted for the purposes of the welfare of the entire class of employees who are employed by one establishment though ostensibly claiming to be different establishments because they are either registered or recognised under one or another statute. The very benevolent purpose of the Act of 1952 of providing provident fund to the class of employees by deducting the amount from their salary and by calling upon the employer to deposit the equivalent amount is to see that on their retirement the employees/ workmen who are otherwise lowly paid are armed with sufficient fund so as to maintain their family or so as to live rest of their lives by banking upon the savings which are made in their provident fund. This benevolent purpose would be totally frustrated if the provisions of other statute and the observations of the Apex Court made in connection with closure of a unit under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applied to such a benevolent welfare statute. This decision, in my opinion, therefore, cannot have any application.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Oxygen Shramik Sangh vs Additional Labour Commissioner And ... on 17 August, 1992

In my opinion, it is no doubt open for the workmen to contend that there was in fact no closure vide Workmen of Straw Board Mills Co. Ltd., v. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1974-I-LLJ-499), but this matter can only be gone into in a full-fledged adjudication on a reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (or Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act) to the Labour Court or the Tribunal. In my opinion, if there is a serious dispute of facts regarding the liability of the employer to pay any amount it can only be adjudicated upon in a reference by the State Government to the Labour Court or the Tribunal. The case of the employer is that the Kanpur Unit was closed down on January 10, 1991. Hence if the workmen want to dispute the factum of closure the remedy is to raise an industrial dispute and get the matter referred under Section 4-K of the U.P. Act or Section 10 of the Central Act and then the matter can be decided by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. This serious dispute cannot be decided by the Additional Labour Commissioner under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - M Katju - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next