Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 78 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Tirumangalam And ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 5 February, 1985

The Management Of Hanil Tube India Pvt. ... vs The Competent Authority & on 1 February, 2012

24 The reliance was also placed on the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Metal Powder Co. Ltd. Tirumangalam and another Vs The State of Tamil Nadu and another (1985-II L.L.J. 376) wherein it was held that apprentice or badli workers could not be included in the workmen as referred to Sec.3(1) and 3(2) of the Act and therefore will not be entitled to benefit.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

The Management vs T.Senthilkumar on 27 January, 2022

22. The contentions raised by Mr.Ajay Khose, learned counsel, stating that the provisions of the Act prevail over the settlement is right and this question has been decided in several matters and it would be beneficial to take note of the decision in Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Thirumangalam and another vs. the State https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in 1985 (2) 12 LLJ 376, which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 30.09.2019 in W.A.Nos.2871 and 2872 of 2018 [The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., vs. Shanmugam (died) and another].
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

A.Valarmani vs The Tamil Nadu Generation & on 10 February, 2022

22. The contentions raised by Mr. Ajay Khose, learned counsel, stating that the provisions of the Act prevail over the settlement is right and this question has been decided in several matters and it would be beneficial to take note of the decision in Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Thirumangalam and another vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1985 (2) LLJ 376, which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 30.09.2019 in W.A. Nos.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

K.N.Palanisamy vs The Presiding Officer on 30 November, 2021

22. The contentions raised by Mr. Ajay Khose, learned counsel, stating that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis provisions of the Act prevail over the settlement 14 is right and this question has been decided in several matters and it would be beneficial to take note of the decision in Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Thirumangalam and another vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1985 (2) LLJ 376, which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 30.09.2019 in W.A. Nos.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

Ashok Leyland Limited vs Industrial Tribunal And Anr. on 9 July, 1999

April 10, 1985 and made applicable for settling the dispute relating to payment of bonus for the year 1984, conferring right on larger number of employees to receive more statutory bonus coupled with a right to raise an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act read with Section 22 of the Bonus Act to demand the difference of bonus payable for the year 1984 notwithstanding the settlement dated April 10, 1985. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention of Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management that the amended provisions of Section 2(13) and Section 12 of the Bonus Act do not confer any right on the 2nd respondent- employees' Union to claim the difference of bonus from the petitioner-Management. That apart, in view of the express provisions in the amended Sections 2(13) and 12 of the Bonus Act, read with Section 34, to the effect that the said provisions were deemed to have had effect in respect of the accounting year commencing on any day in the year 1984 and in respect of every subsequent accounting year, no independent express provision is required in the amendment to reopen the settlement dated April 10, 1985. Therefore, I am of considered opinion the reference to the ratios laid down by the Apex Court in L. I. C of India v. D.J. Bahadur, (supra), and in Metal Power Co. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (supra), relied on by Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management are inappropriate. I am therefore, of considered opinion that the contention of Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent-employees' Union that even though the terms of the settlement dated April 10, 1985 had been accepted and acted upon by the parties to the settlement, in view of the amendment dated November 7, 1985, it should be presumed that the 2nd respondent-employees' Union are entitled for more statutory bonus as the said amendment was deemed to be in force as on April 10, 1985, has to be accepted in view of the deeming provision in the amendment to the above effect.
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

The Managing Director vs Shanmugam (Deceased) on 30 September, 2019

12.1.The fact that there was some arrangements between workmen and the management in the form of advise by the Labour Officer or there was 18(1) settlement and therefore, the existing arrangement cannot be disturbed also does not merit acceptance. Explanation 2 to Section 3 clearly says that the said section will have an over-riding effect over any award, agreement, settlement, instrument or contract of service whether made before or after commencement of the Act. Explanation 2 was amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 44/85 and was made to come into effect with effect from 1.1.1982. The necessity to introduce such explanation arose after the lacuna was pointed out by the earlier division bench in Metal Powder Co. case (cited supra). In that case, the division bench observed that over riding effect cannot disturb the settlement between the parties. Therefore, the legislature made specific insertion of Explanation 2 to have the Act to over ride any agreement or settlement.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parry Agro Industries Limited vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2022

Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the decisions in Metal Powder case(cited supra) and Nellai Cotton Mills case (cited supra) are not acceptable, for the reason that the order passed by the second respondent clearly shows that when notice was issued to the management, they have authorized their General Manager (Production) and one 21/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.2260 of 2012 etc. batch Mr.G.Somanathan, Assistant Manager (Legal) to represent the matter through their letter dated 01.11.1999 and during the enquiry, they have requested for postponement of the conciliation proceedings and accordingly, it was adjourned to 09.11.1999. But, even on 09.11.1999, they did not appear, however, through a letter dated 09.11.1999, they have sought for further 21 days time on the premise that the application filed by them seeking exemption is pending before the Government. Thereafter, final notice was sent to them to attend the enquiry in person and on receipt of such notice, they appeared on 06.12.199, however, they have again sought for time. The second respondent, after perusing the documents filed by the appellants, came to the conclusion that the plantations are neither seasonal nor the work is carried out intermittently, because, all the workers were kept with them years together, therefore, on the basis of the record, the second respondent has come to the conclusion that the workmen has completed 480 days of continuous service in preceding 24 calendar months. Therefore, such a well reasoned order as rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge is sustainable in law. 22/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.2260 of 2012 etc. batch
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

The Regional Manager vs The Appellate Authority/ on 17 August, 2023

17.The argument that the settlement and the Award is binding cannot be accepted because of the non-obstante clause found in Section 3(1) of the I.D. Act. Originally, it did not cover a Settlement or an Award. Therefore, if there was any settlement or Award between the employer and the workmen, then the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 will have no application. This was noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Thirumangalam and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another [1985 (2) L.L.J. 376] and after referring to the similar provisions in other Labour enactments in paragraph 27, it was observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - B Devanand - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation vs The Appellate Authority Under The on 17 August, 2023

17.The argument that the settlement and ___________ Page 12 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.17694 of 2019 the Award is binding cannot be accepted because of the non-obstante clause found in Section 3(1) of the I.D. Act. Originally, it did not cover a Settlement or an Award. Therefore, if there was any settlement or Award between the employer and the workmen, then the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 will have no application. This was noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Thirumangalam and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another [1985 (2) L.L.J. 376] and after referring to the similar provisions in other Labour enactments in paragraph 27, it was observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - B Devanand - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation vs The Appellate Authority Under The on 17 August, 2023

17.The argument that the settlement and ___________ Page 12 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.17698 of 2019 the Award is binding cannot be accepted because of the non-obstante clause found in Section 3(1) of the I.D. Act. Originally, it did not cover a Settlement or an Award. Therefore, if there was any settlement or Award between the employer and the workmen, then the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 will have no application. This was noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Thirumangalam and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another [1985 (2) L.L.J. 376] and after referring to the similar provisions in other Labour enactments in paragraph 27, it was observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - B Devanand - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next