Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 142 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing Jalan Trading Co. (Private Ltd.) vs Mill Mazdoor Union(With Connected ... on 5 August, 1966

Puraswalkam Santhatha Sanga Nidhi Ltd. ... vs Reserve Bank Of India Of Others on 29 October, 1996

44. It has been contended by the petitioners that the clarification issued on August 24, 1996, is absolutely useless because none of the nidhi companies can show a net owned fund sufficient enough to claim the ratio of 1 : 20. According to the petitioners, it is impossible of performance and incapable of compliance. Therefore, it is argued that the entire notification is arbitrary. The above difficulty as experienced by the nidhi companies cannot be cited as ground for nullifying the impugned notifications. One has to keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, . Equally unacceptable is the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that it is open to the respondents to take necessary action against the defaulting nidhi companies and not to impose restrictions on all the nidhi companies because of one or two defaulting members. I have already adverted to the fact that the respondents have already undertaken a study and the restrictions have been imposed only on the basis of such a study. It is not open to the court to hold that the study itself is defective and that, therefore, the consequences of the study in the shape of the impugned notification has got to be struck down. One has to remember that in such financial activities the Reserve Bank of India has to innovate and implement new schemes or regulations and where necessary they do not hesitate to amend or modify the regulations or schemes. It is always on a trial and error basis.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By The ... vs India Cements Ltd. And Ors. on 23 April, 1971

44. The decision of the Supreme Court reported in Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdor Sabha (1967) 1 S.C.J. 189; A.I.R. 1.967 S.C. 691, dealing with the fixation of Bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act (1965) has dealt with this aspect--Vide paragraph 19 at page 703 in which it was pointed out that the employees and employers against whom the complaint of discrimination was made under Article 14 of the Constitution were not impleaded and the Supreme Court for that reason declined to express any opinion on the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions in the Act without these persons being impleaded as parties. The question is a fortiorari in the instant case. The Cement Control Order is not an order merely fixing price as in the Foodgrains Control Order or similar Orders, but in the Cement Control Order there are several interconnected provisions in which all the units are clubbed together and are vitally interested. The order contains provisions concerning all the units as to how the cement produced by the respective units should be marketed and in what manner they should make adjustments and appropriations out of the consumers' f.o.r. price realised by the individual units. The Cement Regulation Account is an account which has to be operated for the benefit of all the units, and speaking for ourselves, we find it impossible to conceive a proceeding in which a writ of mandamus could be asked that the consolidated fund, which grows and is built only out of the contribution made by all the units should not be operated upon without the other units being heard. It is not one or two units, but a considerable portion--70 per cent, of the units who have contributed to the building up of this Fund. Some of the units would be entitled to reimbursement from the Cement Regulation Account for the excess freight. When there is a demand for supply, those units are bound to supply the cement, but at the same time, they will be disabled from obtaining reimbursement if there should be an injunction as prayed for. To pass such an order touching the consolidated fund without hearing all the units who have contributed to the fund, would result in a deadlock and utter confusion. To recognise a jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of mandamus prohibiting the operation of the Cement Regulation Fund in the absence of and without hearing the other units, would be violently opposed to all principles of natural justice. It is not a question of the Government raising a plea of non-joinder, but is more a fundamental question of the Court being called upon to issue directions which would turn out to be futile and meaningless when the parties most vitally affected are not before the Court. With great respect to Ismail, J. we are of the prima facie view that once it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Court is called upon the issue a writ which would affect the rights which have accrued in favour of the other units in the cement industry, the writ petitions should have been simply dismissed in limine.
Madras High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Phoenix Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 3 October, 1991

"The constitutional validity of Section 36 is no more open to challenge - see the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha . Both Sections 10 and 36 are contemporaneous provisions in the Act. Section 36 enables the Government to exempt any establishment or class of establishments from the purview of all or any of the provisions of the Act. Thus, it is patent that the Government has the comptence to exempt any establishment or class of establishments even from Section 10 notwithstanding that Section 10 is mandatory so far as the employer's liability to the workmen and notwithstanding the said provision is an ameliorative one from the point of view of the workmen. Therefore, we are unable to accede to the argument, because bonus is a deferred wage, under no circumstances can the Government in exercise of their power under Section 36 relieve any establishment or class of establishments from the clutches of Section 10... At the outset, we have to point to that the power exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India in interfering with the order passed by the Government under Section 36 of the Act is almost the same as the power of interference by this Court with the order of the Government passed under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In other words, if extraneous considerations had weighed with the Government, the order is liable to be struck down. If the order is borne out of malice, it is bad. If the order failed to take into consideration all relevant considerations, it suffers from legal infirmity. Besides in a case where the Government exercised its powers under Section 36 of the Act, it is bound to take into consideration whether such exercise will foster the public interest. A careful reading of Section 36 of the Act will show that the appropriate Government is bound to have regard to (a) financial position and (b) other relevant circumstances of any establishment or class of establishments. The other mandate on the Government is that it shall be satisfied that it would not be in public interest to apply all or any of the provisions of the Act to such establishment or class of establishments. Thus not only has the appropriate Government a duty to consider the financial position and other relevant circumstances of an establishment, but also has to be satisfied that it would not be in public interest to apply all or any of the provisions of the Act. The following manner in which Section 36 is couched, "it will not be in public interest to apply all or any of the provisions of this Act thereto", has its own significance. In our view, the Government must be of the opinion that it will not advance public interest to apply all or any of the provisions of the Act and if such opinion is formed, the Government is bound to grant exemption. It follows therefore that in a converse case, the Government is justified in refusing exemption.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Calcutta. on 17 May, 1967

It may be broadly stated that bonus, which was originally a voluntary payment out of profits to workmen to keep them contented, acquired the character, under the Full Bench Formula, of a right to share in the surplus profits and enforceable through the machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act. Under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, liability to pay bonus has become a statutory obligation imposed upon employers covered by the Act, (vide the observation of the Supreme Court in Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha [[1966] 36 Comp. Cas. 901; 29 F.J.R. 463 (S.C.).].
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Sayaji Mills Ltd. on 13 March, 1972

10. It will, therefore, be seen that according to industrial law as laid down by the Supreme Court in these decided cases, if it can be shown that, on an application of the Full Bench Formula, an employer has sufficient available surplus in his hands, the workmen would have a right to claim bonus and there would correspondingly be a liability on the employer to pay bonus. Where workmen make a claim for bonus and the claim is disputed by the employer, an industrial dispute would arise and when that industrial dispute is referred for adjudication, the industrial court would determine the industrial dispute on the application of the principle that if it is found that there is available surplus in the hands of the employer calculating on the basis of the Full Bench Formula, the workmen must be held entitled to receive bonus and a part of the available surplus must be awarded to them by way of bonus. The right of the workmen to claim bonus and the liability of the employer to pay bonus are the right and the liability recognisable only in industrial adjudication and they would have no meaning and existence so far as civil courts are concerned. It may, therefore, be a matter for consideration whether a liability to pay bonus which is not recognised by the civil courts but is recognisable only in industrial adjudication can be said to be a "debt owed" within the meaning of that expression as used in section 2(m). But we do not propose to decide this question since we are of the view that even otherwise the liability to pay bonus does not become a "debt owed" by the employer until a claim is made by the workmen and it is settled by mutual agreement or industrial adjudication.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

V.V. Puri vs Assistant Controller, Reserve Bank Of ... on 9 September, 1969

(19) The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, placed strong reliance on this very case (Jalan Trading Co. Private Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha) in support of his contention that section 18B deserved to be struck down. In this case the validity of section 37 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, was in question. This provision empowered the Central Government to remove doubts or difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, and was held to be excessive delegation by the Legislature to the Executive authority. The reason that led to this conclusion was that the section in terms authorised the Government to determine for itself what the purpoes of the Act were and also to make provisions for removal of doubts or difficulties. The Court, therefore, held that power to remove the doubts or difficulties by altering the provisions of the Act was nothing in substance but the exercise of the legislative authority itsef and in this view there was excessive delegation in this case. No such question arises in the present case in relation to section 18B of the Act. The Reserve Bank, as stated earlier, is bound to act within the four corners of the Act and to grant or withhold permission only for the purpose of regulating and conserving the foreign exchange of the country and cannto alter this policy.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Premier Automobiles Ltd. & Anr. Etc vs Union Of India on 24 November, 1971

shareholders and a specified percentage of reserves from the gross profits. Section 15 deals with set off and set on. Where allocable surplus exceeds the maximum amount payable under s. 11 the excess has to be carried forward for being set on in the succeeding year upto the fourth accounting year. Where there is no available surplus in an accounting year or the allocable surplus falls short of the minimum bonus payable (4%) and there is no sufficient amount carried forward and set on from which minimum bonus can be paid, the same shall be carried forward for being set off in the succeeding year according to the fourth schedule. Section 10 of the Bonus Act at first sight may appear to be a provision for granting additional wage to employees but that section is an integral part of a scheme for payment of bonus at rates which do not widely fluctuate from year to year. This Act has thus provided that bonus in a given year shall not exceed one-fifth and shall not be less than 1/25th of the total earning of an employee. It has been ensured that the excess share shall be carried forward to the next year and that the amount paid by way of minimum bonus not absorbed by the available profits shall be carried to the next year and shall be set off against the profits of the succeeding year. The object of the Bonus Act is to make an equitable distribution of the surplus profits of the establishment with a view to maintain peace and harmony bet- ween the three agencies, (capital management and labour) which contribute to the earning of profits (See Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Union(1). The Commission came to the correct conclusion that bonus is connected with profits and it cannot be included in the ex- works cost.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 86 - A N Grover - Full Document

M.K. Suresh Kumar, Nm vs The Union Of India on 17 February, 2026

"17. A word about the validity of Section 42 of the A.P. Act. Section 37 of the Payment of Bonus Act conferred a similar power upon the Central Government; it further declared that any such order would be final. It was struck down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, as amounting to excessive delegation of legislative power.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Hutti Gold Mines Kamgar Sangh vs Government Of India And Ors. on 14 April, 1972

16. "The object of the Act", observed Shah, J., in delivering judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jalan Trading Co v. Mills Mazdoor Sabha , at p. 704, "being to maintain peace and harmony between labour and capital by allowing the employees to share the prosperity of the establishment reflected by the profits earned by the contributions made by capital, management and labour, Parliament has provided that bonus in a given year shall not excsed 1/5th and shall not be less than 1/25th of the total earning of each individual employee, and has directed that the excess share shall be carried forward to the next year, and that the amount paid by way of minimum bonus not absorbed by the available profits shall be carried to the next year and be set off against the profits of the succeeding years. This scheme of prescribing maximum and minimum rates of bonus together with the scheme of "set off" and "set on" not only secures the right of labour to share in the prosperity of the establishment but also ensures a reasonable degree of uniformity."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next