Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 98 (4.37 seconds)
Documents citing Madan Mohan Pathak And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 February, 1978

Devinder Kumar & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 25 April, 2026

the payment of bonus. The law was challenged by the employees. In that case, there was a judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had given effect to the right of the employees to an annual cash bonus under an industrial settlement, by the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The mandamus bound the parties to the dispute. It was in this backdrop that the Constitution Bench observed that the effect of the mandamus of issued by the High Court could not simply be nullified by enacting a law overriding the industrial settlement. This Court held: (Madan Mohan Pathak case, SCC p. 67, para 9) "9. ....Here, the judgment All India Insurance Employees' Assn. rt v. Union of India, 1976 SCC OnLine Cal 108 given by the Calcutta High Court, which is relied upon by the petitioners, is not a mere declaratory judgment holding an impost or tax to be invalid, so that a validation statute can remove the defect pointed out by the judgment amending the law with retrospective effect and validate such impost or tax. But it is a judgment giving effect to the right of the petitioners to annual cash bonus under the Settlement by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of such bonus. If by reason of retrospective alteration of the factual or legal situation, the judgment is rendered erroneous, the remedy may be by way of appeal or review, but so long as the judgment stands, it cannot be disregarded or ignored and it must be obeyed by the Life Insurance Corporation. We are, therefore, of the view that, in any event, irrespective of whether the impugned Act is constitutionally valid or not, the Life Insurance Corporation is bound to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the Calcutta High Court and to pay annual cash bonus for the year 1-4-1975 to 31- 3-1976 to Class III and Class IV employees.'
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 204 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Devinder Kumar & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 25 April, 2026

the payment of bonus. The law was challenged by the employees. In that case, there was a judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had given effect to the right of the employees to an annual cash bonus under an industrial settlement, by the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The mandamus bound the parties to the dispute. It was in this backdrop that the Constitution Bench observed that the effect of the mandamus of issued by the High Court could not simply be nullified by enacting a law overriding the industrial settlement. This Court held: (Madan Mohan Pathak case, SCC p. 67, para 9) "9. ....Here, the judgment All India Insurance Employees' Assn. rt v. Union of India, 1976 SCC OnLine Cal 108 given by the Calcutta High Court, which is relied upon by the petitioners, is not a mere declaratory judgment holding an impost or tax to be invalid, so that a validation statute can remove the defect pointed out by the judgment amending the law with retrospective effect and validate such impost or tax. But it is a judgment giving effect to the right of the petitioners to annual cash bonus under the Settlement by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of such bonus. If by reason of retrospective alteration of the factual or legal situation, the judgment is rendered erroneous, the remedy may be by way of appeal or review, but so long as the judgment stands, it cannot be disregarded or ignored and it must be obeyed by the Life Insurance Corporation. We are, therefore, of the view that, in any event, irrespective of whether the impugned Act is constitutionally valid or not, the Life Insurance Corporation is bound to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the Calcutta High Court and to pay annual cash bonus for the year 1-4-1975 to 31- 3-1976 to Class III and Class IV employees.'
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 204 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Devinder Kumar & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 25 April, 2026

the payment of bonus. The law was challenged by the employees. In that case, there was a judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had given effect to the right of the employees to an annual cash bonus under an industrial settlement, by the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The mandamus bound the parties to the dispute. It was in this backdrop that the Constitution Bench observed that the effect of the mandamus of issued by the High Court could not simply be nullified by enacting a law overriding the industrial settlement. This Court held: (Madan Mohan Pathak case, SCC p. 67, para 9) "9. ....Here, the judgment All India Insurance Employees' Assn. rt v. Union of India, 1976 SCC OnLine Cal 108 given by the Calcutta High Court, which is relied upon by the petitioners, is not a mere declaratory judgment holding an impost or tax to be invalid, so that a validation statute can remove the defect pointed out by the judgment amending the law with retrospective effect and validate such impost or tax. But it is a judgment giving effect to the right of the petitioners to annual cash bonus under the Settlement by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of such bonus. If by reason of retrospective alteration of the factual or legal situation, the judgment is rendered erroneous, the remedy may be by way of appeal or review, but so long as the judgment stands, it cannot be disregarded or ignored and it must be obeyed by the Life Insurance Corporation. We are, therefore, of the view that, in any event, irrespective of whether the impugned Act is constitutionally valid or not, the Life Insurance Corporation is bound to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the Calcutta High Court and to pay annual cash bonus for the year 1-4-1975 to 31- 3-1976 to Class III and Class IV employees.'
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 204 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Devinder Kumar & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 25 April, 2026

the payment of bonus. The law was challenged by the employees. In that case, there was a judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had given effect to the right of the employees to an annual cash bonus under an industrial settlement, by the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The mandamus bound the parties to the dispute. It was in this backdrop that the Constitution Bench observed that the effect of the mandamus of issued by the High Court could not simply be nullified by enacting a law overriding the industrial settlement. This Court held: (Madan Mohan Pathak case, SCC p. 67, para 9) "9. ....Here, the judgment All India Insurance Employees' Assn. rt v. Union of India, 1976 SCC OnLine Cal 108 given by the Calcutta High Court, which is relied upon by the petitioners, is not a mere declaratory judgment holding an impost or tax to be invalid, so that a validation statute can remove the defect pointed out by the judgment amending the law with retrospective effect and validate such impost or tax. But it is a judgment giving effect to the right of the petitioners to annual cash bonus under the Settlement by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of such bonus. If by reason of retrospective alteration of the factual or legal situation, the judgment is rendered erroneous, the remedy may be by way of appeal or review, but so long as the judgment stands, it cannot be disregarded or ignored and it must be obeyed by the Life Insurance Corporation. We are, therefore, of the view that, in any event, irrespective of whether the impugned Act is constitutionally valid or not, the Life Insurance Corporation is bound to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the Calcutta High Court and to pay annual cash bonus for the year 1-4-1975 to 31- 3-1976 to Class III and Class IV employees.'
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 204 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Devinder Kumar & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 25 April, 2026

the payment of bonus. The law was challenged by the employees. In that case, there was a judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had given effect to the right of the employees to an annual cash bonus under an industrial settlement, by the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The mandamus bound the parties to the dispute. It was in this backdrop that the Constitution Bench observed that the effect of the mandamus of issued by the High Court could not simply be nullified by enacting a law overriding the industrial settlement. This Court held: (Madan Mohan Pathak case, SCC p. 67, para 9) "9. ....Here, the judgment All India Insurance Employees' Assn. rt v. Union of India, 1976 SCC OnLine Cal 108 given by the Calcutta High Court, which is relied upon by the petitioners, is not a mere declaratory judgment holding an impost or tax to be invalid, so that a validation statute can remove the defect pointed out by the judgment amending the law with retrospective effect and validate such impost or tax. But it is a judgment giving effect to the right of the petitioners to annual cash bonus under the Settlement by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of such bonus. If by reason of retrospective alteration of the factual or legal situation, the judgment is rendered erroneous, the remedy may be by way of appeal or review, but so long as the judgment stands, it cannot be disregarded or ignored and it must be obeyed by the Life Insurance Corporation. We are, therefore, of the view that, in any event, irrespective of whether the impugned Act is constitutionally valid or not, the Life Insurance Corporation is bound to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the Calcutta High Court and to pay annual cash bonus for the year 1-4-1975 to 31- 3-1976 to Class III and Class IV employees.'
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 204 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2021

50. The reliance on another judgment of this Court 27 is not tenable wherein a settlement was arrived at regarding payment of bonus effective from April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1977 with four different associations of employees. A writ of 26 Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Broach Borough Municipality & Ors., (1969) 2 SCC 283 27 Madan Mohan Pathak & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (1978) 2 SCC 50 33 Mandamus was issued by the Calcutta High Court. The Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 was thereafter promulgated in September, 1975. The Payment of Bonus Act was not applicable to the Life Insurance Corporation by virtue of Section 32 of the said impugned Act. This Court found that the impugned Act did not set at naught the entire settlement relating to payment of annual cash bonus of Class III and Class IV employees and that too from April, 1 1975. Since the settlement had attained finality as the same was approved by the Board of Directors as well as by the Central Government, and that the Writ of Mandamus was issued by the Calcutta High Court to pay annual cash bonus to the employees, it was held that the judgment can be remedied by way of an appeal or review, but it cannot be disregarded or ignored and must be obeyed by Life Insurance Company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 179 - Cited by 8 - L N Rao - Full Document

S.Nagaraj (D) By Lrs.& Ors vs B.R.Vasudeva Murthy & Ors on 8 February, 2010

In Madan Mohan Pathak and Another v. Union of India and Others (supra), the Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No. 371 of 1976 had delivered the judgment dated 21.5.1976 issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay annual cash bonus to Class III and Class IV employees for the year April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976 along with their salary for the month of April, 1976. Against the said judgment of learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Letters Patent Appeal was filed but by the time Letters Patent Appeal came up for hearing, the Life Insurance Corporation (Modification of Settlement) Act, 1976 came into force and there was no provision in this Act absolving the Life Insurance Corporation from its obligation to carry out the writ of mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. For some reason or the other, the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was withdrawn by the Life Insurance 56 Corporation. P.N. Bhagwati, J., as he then was, delivering the judgment on behalf of himself, Krishna Iyer and Desai, JJ. held that since the Life Insurance Corporation did not press the Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court granting the writ of mandamus became final and binding on the parties and in these circumstances, the Life Insurance Corporation could not claim to be absolved from the obligation imposed by the judgment to carry out the writ of mandamus by relying on the Life Insurance Corporation (Modification of Settlement) Act, 1976. Bhagwati, J. held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 41 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Joe Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2020

13. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is covered by Ext.P9 judgment of the Division Bench and that so long as it is not reversed the benefit of the judgment should be extended to the petitioner cannot also be accepted. It is seen that Ext.P9 judgment has rendered in the peculiar circumstances of that case where the Syndicate of the University had passed a resolution permitting the petitioner therein to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. Based on that decision, a judgment was also rendered in his case directing to retain him in accordance with that decision. The judgment rendered in the circumstances can only be applicable to Dr.Razaludeen who was the petitioner/appellant therein. In the absence of any order either allowing the petitioner or the Directors of the Department of Publications to continue in service beyond 56 years and in the absence of any provision in the Statute which fixed the retirement age of persons like W.P.(C) No.1695/2020 :15: petitioner/Director of Publication as 60, it cannot be said that Ext.P9 judgment governs the case of the petitioner. There is no declaration in Ext.P9 judgment that the retirement age of the Director of Department of Publication is 60 years. Therefore the dictum laid down in Madan Moham Pathak and another vs. Union of India (1978) 2 SCC 50 and Sreedharan Kallat vs. Union of India (1995) 2 KLT 770 would not be applicable in the present case.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P V Asha - Full Document

Goa Foundation vs State Of Goa on 29 March, 2016

24. The principles on which first question would require to be answered are not in doubt. The power to invalidate a legislative or executive act lies with the Court. A judicial pronouncement, either declaratory or conferring rights on the citizens cannot be set at naught by a subsequent legislative act for that would amount to an encroachment on the judicial powers. However, the legislature would be competent to pass an amending or a validating act, if deemed fit, with retrospective effect removing the basis of the decision of the Court. Even in such a situation the courts may not approve a retrospective deprivation of accrued rights arising from a judgment by means of a 22 subsequent legislation [Madan Mohan Pathak and Another vs. Union of India and Others3]. However, where the Court’s judgment is purely declaratory, the courts will lean in support of the legislative power to remove the basis of a Court judgment even retrospectively, paving the way for a restoration of the status quo ante. Though the consequence may appear to be an exercise to overcome the judicial pronouncement it is so only at first blush; a closer scrutiny would confer legitimacy on such an exercise as the same is a normal adjunct of the legislative power. The whole exercise is one of viewing the different spheres of jurisdiction exercised by the two bodies i.e. the judiciary and the legislature.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Gogoi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next