Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.51 seconds)
Documents citing I.T.C. Employees Association And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 23 July, 1980

State Of West Bengal vs M/S. Shrey Marcentile Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 7 July, 2000

5. Mr. Pradip Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners-respondents on the other hand, submitted that Mutation fee cannot be in the nature of a regulatory fee as there is no element of regulation in relation to mutation. According to the learned counsel, such a provision has been made for the benefit of the Corporation as the same enables it to recover rates and taxes from those, whose names are mutated. The said Act, the learned counsel urged, provides for penal provision for not applying for mutation and, thus, it must be held to be a tax and the same being in the nature of stamp duty or estate duty, was beyond the legislative competence of the State legislation. Apart from the decisions cited before the learned trial Judge, the learned counsel has placed strong reliance on ITC & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 1985(supp) SCC 476 and the Constitution Bench decision in Kewal Krishan Puri & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. .
Calcutta High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

The Management Of Apsrtc Rep. By Its Vice ... vs The Workmen Of The Apsrtc Rep. By Its ... on 22 April, 2008

Under Clause 4 of Annexure-1 when a union has been recognised, there should be no change in its position for a period of two years. Under Clause 5 of the said Annexure, when there are several unions in an industry or establishment, the one with the largest membership should be recognised. Under Clause 8, only unions which observe the Code of Discipline would be entitled to recognition. (I.T.C. Employees Association v. State of Karnataka 1981(1) LLJ 431 (Karnataka High Court). The Code of discipline which provides for recognition of the Union, which represents a majority of the workmen in the establishment, as the recognized union with whom the management would negotiate, does not have statutory force. The Code of discipline is neither referable to any specific statute nor does the Industrial Disputes Act, which prescribes the procedure for resolution of Industrial Disputes either amicably by means of conciliation, settlements etc or by adjudication by the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals, place any restriction requiring an industrial dispute to be raised only by a Union recognized by the employer under the Code of discipline.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 56 - Cited by 3 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. Employees' ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Labour, Head ... on 5 November, 1982

The first decision is that of I.T.C. Employees' Association and others v. State of Karnataka and others, [1981-I L.L.J. 431]. There a writ petition was filed challenging the validity of a settlement deed said to have been entered into between the I.T.C. and a union of workers. The writ petition was filed by the I.T.C. Employees' Association challenging the validity of a settlement entered into between the management of the I.T.C. Ltd., and another union which according to the management was the majority union recognized under the Code of Discipline. The contention of the minority union before the Karnataka High Court was that the conciliation officer ought not to have certified the settlement under S. 12(3) and that prior to certifying the conciliation officer had not investigated the dispute and did not even grant time to the petitioner-union to consider the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement. One of the objections that was taken before the Karnataka High Court was that the writ petition was not maintainable. Bopanna, J., held that though the petitioners are not entitled to the writ for quashing the impugned settlement, they could pray for a declaration that the settlement was not one under S. 12(3) of the Act but one attracting S. 18(1) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned settlement was not binding on them. The learned judge further observed thus in Para 8 at page 438;
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Madras Labour Union vs Binny Ltd. (Buckingham And Carnatic ... on 26 August, 1994

In I.T.C. Employees' Association v. State of Karnataka [1981] 1 LLJ 431, it is held that a petition under article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to challenge the validity of a settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings and a High Court can in an appropriate case grant declaratory relief. The ground on which the validity of the settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was attacked in that case was that the Joint Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, who was respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, did not examine whether the terms of the settlement are beneficial to the workmen or not and did not apply her mind to fairness and reasonableness of the terms. The subject-matter of attack was really the action of the conciliation officer in approving the settlement. After referring to some of the earlier rulings, the court held that a fortiori the conduct and action of the conciliation officer in impressing the settlement with the stamp of a settlement in the course of a conciliation proceedings is open to scrutiny in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India; but the relief in such a petition would be of a declaratory nature, which may in appropriate cases necessitate the granting of consequential reliefs. The ruling does not help the petitioner in this case. It must be noted that the court held the impugned settlement to be valid and referred to the fact that the petitioner association had effectively participated in the conciliation proceedings. Incidentally, it must be pointed out that the said association was not a recognised one.
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 24 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

Dr.Reddys Formulations Techops-Ii, ... vs The Govt. Of Telangana, Rep. By Its ... on 11 November, 2014

15. Appendix-I to the Code of Discipline requires the Management to recognize the Union in accordance with the criteria provided in Annexure-I to that Appendix, which was evolved at the 16th Sessions of the Indian Labour Conference held in May, 1958. Under Clause-4 of Annexure-I when a Union has been recognized, there should be no change in its position for a period of two years. Under Clause 5 of the said Annexure, when there are several Unions in an industry or establishment, the one with the largest membership should be recognized. Under Clause 8, only Unions which observe the Code of Discipline would be entitled to recognition (I.T.C. Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka, 1981 (1) LLJ 431 (Karnataka High Court).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - M S Rao - Full Document

Electronics Corporation Of India ... vs The Medical Council Of India, ... on 19 June, 2017

15. Appendix-I to the Code of discipline requires the management to recognise the Union in accordance with the criteria provided in Annexure-I to that Appendix, which was evolved at the 16th session of the Indian Labour Conference held in May, 1958. Under clause 4 of Annexure-1 when a union has been recognised, there should be no change in its position for a period of two years. Under clause 5 of the said Annexure, when there are several unions in an industry or establishment, the one with the largest membership should be recognised. Under clause 8, only unions which observe the Code of Discipline would be entitled to recognition. (I.T.C. Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka, 1981 (1) LLJ 431)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A R Reddy - Full Document
1