Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.61 seconds)

Monthly Rated Workmen Of Peiree Leslie ... vs The Labour Commissioner And The Chief ... on 23 November, 1965

In Erumeh Estate v Industrial Tribunal 1962-2 Lab LJ 144 (Ker). Vaidialingam. J., had to consider the question The workmen in an establishment were members of three unions. Some of the workmen represented by one of the Unions raised certain demands Subsequently another set of workmen acting through another union raised the same demands in the course of conciliation proceedings in respect of the demands raised by the second union the parties arrived at a settlement under the terms of which the union agreed to give up the particular demand In the conciliation conference the workmen who were the members of the other two unions were not represented. They were not parties to the settlement, in the sense that I he unions representing them did not sign the settlement Subsequently the Slate Government referred the demands for adjudication at the Instance of the workmen represented by the unions which were not parties to the settlement. The Industrial Tribunal overruled the contention advanced on behalf of the employer that the settlement was binding on all the workmen of the establishment under Section 10 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and passed an award on merits. The award was challenged before this court. The learned Judge held that the settlement in question being a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings was binding on all workmen in the establishment and hence the reference in respect of the demands covered by the settlement was bad. He also held that a conciliation settlement in respect of common matters pertaining I he employees of the establishment. Though settled between one union and the management, will be binding under Section 18 (3) on all the employees of the establishment irrespective of the fact whether the other employees of the establishment are not members of the union which signed the settlement or that they are members of some other union which was not a party to the settlement.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Workers Of Buckingham And Carnatic Co., ... vs Commissioner Of Labour And Chief ... on 9 August, 1963

In Erumeli Estate v. Industrial Tribunal, 1962-2 Lab LJ 144 (Kerala) Vaidialingam J. observed that a conciliation agreement in respect of common matters pertaining to the employees of the establishment though settled between one union and the management would be binding Under Section 18(3) on all the employees of the establishment irrespective of the fact that certain employees were not members of the union which signed the settlement or on the ground that they were members of some other union which was not a party to the settlement.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

The Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 11 August, 1967

(1) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 448, 452 166 Reference was also made to the case of Erumeli Estate v. Industrial Tribunal (1). There the question directly arose as to whether non-publication of the period mentioned in S. 17 (1)invalidated the award and the learned Judge observed that he was not inclined to accept that contention although it was highly desirable that the award should be published within the time mentioned. He said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 18 - G K Mitter - Full Document
1