Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.35 seconds)
Documents citing Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Hindustan Steel Employees Union And ... on 24 January, 1997

Shiraz Golden Restaurant vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 16 March, 2000

In support of the said contention, reliance had been placed on Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen, , Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi and Ors., Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Employees Union and Ors., reported in (1998-I-LLJ-704) (Cal-DB) & Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation erf India v. Shri Suraj Pal Sharma and Anr., reported in (1999-I- LLJ-1306) (Del).
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Birla Corporation Ltd. vs First Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 10 February, 2006

In support of such submission Mr. Bandopadhyay referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Employees' Union and Ors. reported in 1998 (78) FLR page 293, where remittance of such a dispute by the Writ Court to the Tribunal for decision was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in appeal, notwithstanding some formal defects were found to be in existence in the citation of the reference.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 32 - J Bhattacharya - Full Document

Framatone Connectors O/E/N Ltd. vs Framatone Connectors O/E/N Workers' ... on 30 September, 2002

In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Employees' Union, 1998 (1) LLJ 704, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was of the view that once the issue referred for adjudication is one referable to Section 2A, namely discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of an individual workman, it does not matter as to whether it is a union sponsored reference or one by the individual workman. At paragraph 22 it is stated as follows:-
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Humboldt Wedag India (P) Ltd. vs The Eighth Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 29 April, 2003

4. He further contended that in 1977(1) CHN 328 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Employees' Union and Ors.) where a Division Bench of this High Court held that in making an order of reference the appropriate Government merely sees whether an industrial dispute has come into existence or not. If the industrial dispute has come into existence and the espousal of the cause is made by the other workman or the Union of workmen is becomes wholly irrelevant. The Court has to see the substance and not the form of the order.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - A Lala - Full Document

Indian Oil Petronas Private Limited vs Union Of India & Others on 8 April, 2016

So far as the ratio decided in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Supra) is concerned the existence of the power of the tribunal is an undisputed fact. But the existence of a power and its exercise are not synonymous. Merely because a court or tribunal has power to do certain thing does not, merely as a corollary of the existence of the power, mean that the same should be exercised irrespective of the factual basis. This is not the position in law. This can never be so. In order to exercise the power, the court has to decide why it is in the facts of that particular case necessary that such power should be exercised.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - S Chakrabarti - Full Document

The Workmen Of Navnil Enterprise vs Indian Oil Petronas Private Limited And ... on 7 June, 2017

The Court further held that the ratio of the judgement decided in the case of Hochtief Gammon Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Orissa and others reported in 1964(II)LLJ 460 and in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Hindustan Steel Employees Union and others, reported in 1997 LAB. I.C. 987 are not applicable as these facts and circumstances in which those judgments have been given were clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand before this Court. The Court, therefore, recorded a finding that this is not the position in law and this can never be so. In order to exercise the power, the court has to decide why it is in the facts of that particular case necessary that such power should be exercised. The writ court also found that there is no discussion whether the petitioner has a direct or substantial interest in the subject matter of reference or whether its presence is necessary for answering the issues arising out of it. Noticing the fact that the only observation about the merit of the case is that the management of the respondent no. 3 had not specifically submitted that the petitioner was not a necessary party. This fact had been dealt with by the Court in its earlier paragraph of the judgment. The Court also noticing that without amending the terms of reference the application of addition of party could not be allowed and the union was required to approach the concerned Ministry for addition of party. There was a valid objection to an application for addition of party and the court came to a conclusion that the management had factually, specifically and unequivocally opposed the prayer of addition of party by the union of the respondent no. 3. The Tribunal had committed an error in law ignoring this fact by addition of the petitioner as party to the reference without giving an opportunity of being heard as there was no employee and employer relationship with the petitioner/company and the workers of Navnil Enterprise who were given contract which had subsequently closed.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Tiwari - Full Document
1