Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing H.M.T. Limited vs Labour Court on 6 September, 1982

M.S. Abbobacker vs Hmt Ltd. And Anr. on 1 March, 1988

13. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced, the counsel for the first respondent made on oral request for certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It was submitted before us that this Court granted leave to appeal from the decision in H.M.T. Ltd. v. Labour Court, (supra) and the appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. The same question arises in this O.P. also. We, therefore, certify that a substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court arises in this original petition and, therefore, we grant leave.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deshraj Sood vs Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 24 April, 1984

7. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that none of the cases, referred to above, including the Supreme Court decisions considered the questions raised before us namely the definition given to the word "retrenchment" under the Act is for the purpose of the said Act only. The said definition cannot obliterate the provisions of other Acts. While elaborating his argument, learned Counsel submitted that Standing Orders Act required to define with sufficient precision the conditions of employment under an employer and to make the said conditions known to workman employed by them. under Sections 3 and 4 of the Standing Orders Act, the Standing Orders are required to be certified. After the amendment of the Standing Orders Act, 1946, the legislature has imposed upon the certifying officer and the appellate authority the duty to adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonableness of the provisions of any standing order.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1