Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing Papnasam Labour Union vs Madura Coats Ltd on 8 December, 1994

Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India, Min. Of Law. on 13 May, 2016

In Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. and another117 the Court on the base of earlier authorities summed up that when the constitutionality of a statutory provision is challenged on the ground of reasonableness of the restriction, the Court should evaluate whether the restriction is excessive in nature, existence of the reasonable nexus between restriction imposed and the object sought to be achieved, quality of reasonableness, felt need of the society and 115 (1969) 3 SCC 377 116 [1952] S.C.R. 597 117 (1995) 1 SCC 501 134 the complex issues facing the people which the legislature intends to solve, protection of social welfare prevailing within the social values, its consistency and accord with Article 14 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court also observed that in judging the reasonableness of the restriction imposed by clause (6) of Article 19, the Court has to bear in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy and any restriction so imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a directive principle can be presumed to be a reasonable restriction in public interest.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 200 - Cited by 128 - D Misra - Full Document

Bharat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. And Anr. vs K.L. Baria, Judge, Labour Court And Anr. on 20 November, 1997

What is stated therein applies with full force to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts like the I.D. Act and the B.I.R. Act, 1946. As far as the I.D. Act is concerned, even where an employer wants to close down his establishment, he is required to retain the employees on his establishment and to run it for a period of 90 days during which he has to apply to the appropriate Government for closure under Section 25(o) of the I.D. Act. Same arrangement is provided with respect to lay-off under Section 25(m) of the I.D. Act and while upholding the validity of these provisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made similar observations in Papanasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. reported in JT 1991 (1) SC 71 in para 19 as follows :
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 25 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Krishnan Kakkanth vs Government Of Kerala And Ors. on 7 February, 1996

5. At the outset, it could be stated that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution do not confer any absolute or unconditional rights on the petitioner. It is always subject to reasonable restriction. Admittedly, RAIDCO and KAICO are Cooperative Societies. The mandate of the Article 43 in Part IV of the Constitution is that the State should endeavour to promote the activities of the Co-operative Societies. It is in this background the matter is to be viewed. It was held in the Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. (1995) 1 JT(SC) 71 at paragraph 16 : (AIR 1995 SC 2200, para 15(k),thus:
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 43 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Ranchi Timber Traders Association And ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 19 August, 1997

22. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 2200, has indicated the principles or guide lines which are to be taken note of while considering the validity of a statutory provision when it is challenged on the ground of unreasonable restriction. The said principles or guide lines are as follows :--
Patna High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Hindalco Industries Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 July, 1996

17. A similar challenge to Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was repelled by the Supreme Court in Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. 1995 LIC 735 the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in Excel Wear's case (supra) and Meenakshi Mills case (supra) and several other decisions as well. The Court concluded that the observations of the Supreme Court upholding the validity of Section 25-N squarely applied in upholding the validity of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Patna High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - B P Singh - Full Document

M. Sreenivasulu Reddy And Ors. vs Kishore R. Chhabria And Ors. on 19 April, 1999

In Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. [1995] 1 JT 71, such curtailment of the right for a limited period was held to be justified in para. 19 of that judgment. In the facts of the present case, therefore, if a party makes out a case that shares have been acquired in breach of the provisions, the wording of which is negative and mandatory, the consequences will have to follow.
Bombay High Court Cites 256 - Cited by 7 - H L Gokhale - Full Document
1   2 Next