Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Infar (India) Ltd. vs Madan Mohan Ghosh And Ors. on 15 May, 2000

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. vs Associated Cement Staff Union And Anr. on 7 September, 2001

A Division Bench of the Calcuttta High Court in Infar (India) Ltd. v. Madan Mohan Ghosh and Ors., 2001(1) LLJ 453 was considering the expression "Officer" and "Office Bearer" and whether two mean two different things. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court referred to concise Oxford Dictionary for the meaning of the word "Officer" wherein expression was set out as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 3 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Associated Cement Staff Union vs Associated Cement Companies Limited on 9 November, 2001

"3. Word "officer" is not considered appropriate in the case of trade unions and has therefore sought to be substituted by the word "office bearer". The learned Single Judge relied on, and in our opinion rightly, on the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Infar (India) Ltd. (supra) where that Court has held that the word 'officer' has been used in the context of an employer and the word 'office bearer' has been used in the context of the trade unions. The Calcutta High Court has noted that earlier it had not taken note of the definition of the term 'office bearer. Section 2(III) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which defines that term as follows :--
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

R. Rajamani vs The Presiding Officer, Ii Additional ... on 20 February, 2007

16. Similarly in the case of Infar (India) Limited v. Madam Mohan Ghosh and Ors. 2001 (10 LLN 1140 the Calcutta High Court upheld the right of the employer to be represented by one Sri Amar Roy, an advocate, who was the President of the Employers' Association who represented the employer company before the Tribunal. The Calcutta High Court after referring to the several meanings of the term Officer from the dictionary held that what is required is that one has to find out whether the incumbent representative is member of an association or not.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - A P Shah - Full Document
1