Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995

Bajirao Rajaram Patil vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank ... on 29 October, 1996

It appears that the employee also made an application for interim relief in the said complaint and though initially interim relief was granted by the Industrial Court but, it was later on vacated by the order dated 22.7.1991. The said order passed by the Industrial Court dated 22.7.1991 vacating the interim relief was challenged before the Court by the employee in Writ petition no. 3287 of 1991. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court by the order dated 24th March, 1995 by consent of the parties and accordingly the operation of the transfer order remained stayed during pendency of the complaint. The employer made an application before the industrial Court on 18.9.1996 raising the preliminary issue about the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the said complaint filed by the employee was not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shramik Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. & Ors. 1995 I CLR 607. The Industrial Court heard the parties on the preliminary objection raised by the employer about the maintainability of the complaint and Industrial Court upheld the objection raised by the employer that complaint is not maintainable and by the order dated 1.10.1996 dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. The order passed by the Industrial Court, Nasik dated 1.10.1996 is impugned in the present writ petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 6 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Shivanand Madanmohan Mishra And Anr. vs Universal Ferro And Allied Chemicals ... on 8 April, 2004

29. Therefore, the core question, that arises for consideration, in the present petition, is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to file a complaint, challenging the settlement, arrived at between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, in view of the provisions of the BIR Act. The Apex Court in the case of Shramik Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymod Woollen Mills Ltd. and Ors. (cited supra) considered the question as to whether the representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 has exclusive right to represent the employees, for the concerned industry, in complaints relating to unfair labour practices, under the said Act, other than those specified in Item Nos. 2 and 6 of Schedule-IV thereof. After taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the said Act and the BIR Act, this Court observed thus :--
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Navjagrut Labour Union And Anr. vs Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 6 July, 2007

30. After having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after having gone through the memo of Civil Application, affidavit-in-reply filed by the opponent Nos. 1 & 2 as well as the written submissions filed by the learned advocates on behalf of the respective parties and after having considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law on the subject, the issues which arose for Court's consideration are as to whether under the relevant provisions of BIR Act, when one representative Union is there in any industrial establishment, is it open for any individual member of that Union or any other Union to represent the case of the members of the Union? The other issue which arose for the Court's consideration is that after an amendment by the State Government in BIR Act, 1946 by way of an insertion of Sub-section (6) in Section 2 and after publication of Notification dated April 19, 2005, granting exemption to the opponent No. 1 Company from the provisions of the BIR Act, with a rider that provisions of Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 shall apply to such cessor as if the said BIR Act had been repealed in relation to the opponent No. 1 Company, whether, by virtue of this amendment as well as Notification, the opponent No. 1 Company is still governed by the provisions of BIR Act insofar as the pending proceedings are concerned? As far as the first issue is concerned, T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the applicant Union has fairly conceded that there is no dispute about the fact that under the BIR Act, once the representative Union is there in an establishment representing the case of its members, it is not open for any individual or another Union to represent the cases of its members. We, therefore, do not think it just and proper to discuss much about the first issue. Even otherwise, the law is well settled so far as this issue is concerned. As observed earlier, in the case of Shramik Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the interest of industrial peace and public national interest require the employer to deal with representative Union in matters concerning all or most of the employees.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - K A Puj - Full Document

I.T.C. Limited (India Tobacco ... vs General Labour Union And Anr. on 15 March, 2001

3. By an order dated 26th November, 1991 the complaint No. 538 of 1989 filed by the first respondent unrecognised union was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of locus standi to file the complaint and also on merits. The Writ Petition No. 2010 of 1992 filed against the said order was dismissed by this Court. The net result appears to be that the first complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 i.e, unrecognised union for the very same cause of action was dismissed by the Industrial Court and the said order has been finally confirmed by the Division Bench in Appeal in this Court. It is the case of the petitioner Company that the respondent unrecognised union filed another Complaint for the very same cause of action being the complaint U.L.P. No. 584 of 1991 on behalf of one workman who did not accept the terminal benefits which were accepted by the other workmen and the challenge to the action of the petitioner Company failed upto the appeal stage in this Court. The Petitioner Company therefore requested the Industrial Court by its application dated 21.4.1995 to decide the maintainability of the second complaint for the same cause of action filed against it by the said union which Is an unrecognised union. The Petitioner relied upon the celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shramik Utkarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors., wherein it was held that an unrecognised Union cannot file a complaint of unfair labour practice when there is a recognised union already in existence. The said application was contested by the respondent unrecognised union. By the order dated 11.4.1997 the Industrial Court dismissed the said application on totally untenable ground. The Industrial Court has totally ignored the fact that the complainant was not a recognised union functioning in the industry viz. Tobacco Manufactures Employees Union. The Industrial Court has curiously observed that it was not the case of the Respondent Company that there is any recognised representative Union in the Respondent Undertaking and that it has not brought any evidence to show that there was a recognised/representative union operating in its undertaking. It is very pertinent to note that the very basis of foundation of the application filed by the Petitioner taking objection to the complaint was that the petitioner was not a recognised union, and therefore, its complaint was not maintainable. Even in the written statement it was pointed out that there was another union functioning in the undertaking as recognised union. It is further pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 1 unrecognised union has never challenged this position that there was a recognised union functioning in the industry and that the complainant Union itself was not a recognised union. The Respondent Union has throughout maintained this position including in its reply filed to the application of the Petitioner. In the background of the admitted or undisputed position I fail to understand how the Industrial Court could observe that there was no material or evidence to show that there was some other union In existence and operating as a recognised union. According to me, the Industrial Court ought to have decided the said point in respect of maintainability of the complaint filed by the unrecognised union.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - R J Kochar - Full Document

Bansilal Kishorilal Sahu vs Akola Mazdoor Sangh on 9 November, 2004

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter relied upon the judgment in the case of Utkarsh Sabha v. Raymond Ltd. . The aforesaid judgment also pertains to the representations of the workmen and that has nothing to do with the challenge to the deduction as in the present case. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that the said judgment do not apply to the facts of the present case at all and thus in our view, the said judgment has no relevance whatsoever.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V C Daga - Full Document

Rama Bala Kate And Ors. vs Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. And Ors. on 24 April, 1995

It is true that in the judgment in Raymond Woolen Mills case (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Section 21, of the Act did not lead to the conclusion that a union other than a representative union can appear in proceedings relating to all unfair labour practices, other than those specified in Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. In the entire judgment of the Supreme Court nothing has been said to the effect that the concerned employees, directly affected, could not maintain such a complaint. In any case, the provisions of Section 28, of the Act are clear and they give to the affected employees the right of moving the complaint against the employer. Such right can only be taken away by an express provision in the Act. There is no such provision in the Act. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ramaswami that the complaints by the employees affected invoking the provisions of Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act were not maintainable. I, therefore, overrule the preliminary contention urged by the respondents as to the maintainability of the complaints and the writ petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next