Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Madura Mills Company Ltd. vs Guruvammal And Anr. on 2 September, 1966

General Manager, Northern Railway vs Central Government Labour Court And ... on 22 January, 1979

In Madura Mills Co. Ltd. v. Guruvammal (1966) 31 F.J.R. 73, a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court held that where a statutory right is created in favour of a person and the statute also creates a special machinery for enforcing the specially created right, the right so created cannot be enforced by the ordinary civil Court. Section 33C(2) of the Act provides for a special machinery for recovery of retrenchment compensation which may fall due under Chapter V-A of the Act. Therefore, a suit for the recovery of retrenchment compensation cannot be filed in a civil Court. Assuming that the view expressed in this authority hold's the field, its implication may be that whatever matters are to be adjudicated upon under Section 33C(2) the jurisdiction of the civil Court to that extent is barred. Assuming further that the heirs of a workman are entitled to move the Labour Court under Section 33C(2), it would be competent to decide the issues of inheritance between the heirs inter se. The decision of the Labour Court in a dispute between the heirs inter se shall be final. It could not be the intention of the Legislature to leave the complicated issues of inheritance between the heirs inter se to the Labour Court nor has it been exhibited in Section 33C.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, ... vs A. Krishnan, Lineman Grade I (O And M) ... on 20 November, 1996

as the Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Madura Mills Co. Ltd. v. Guruvammal (1967) 2 Lab.L.J. 397 (Mad.) has pointed out that the Act creates a special machinery under Section 33-C(2) to enforce specially created rights. The parties could not, therefore, approach the ordinary civil Court. We affirm the aforesaid two decisions of the Madras High Court....
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Premier Automobiles Ltd vs Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke Of Bombay & Ors on 26 August, 1975

One of us (Alagiriswami, J) as a Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Madura Mills Company, Ltd. v. Guruvammal 447 and another has pointed out that the Act creates a special machinery under section 33C(2) to enforce specially created rights. The parties could not, therefore, approach the ordinary civil court. We affirm the aforesaid two decisions of the Madras High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 529 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

The Rajasthan State Road ... vs Krishna Kant Etc.Etc on 3 May, 1995

A.I.R.1964 Mad.81), a decision rendered by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court. It was held therein that "the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted impliedly to try a case which could form subject-matter of an industrial dispute collectively between the workmen and their employer." (ii) Madura Mills Company Ltd. v. Guruvammal (1967 (2) L.L.J.397 : (1967) 2 Mad. L.J.287), decided by Alagiriswami, J., (at that time a Judge of the Madras High Court). It was a case concerning the enforcement of a right created by Industrial Disputes Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 128 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Madurai District Co-Operative Supply ... vs S. Sankaranarayanan And Ors. on 16 June, 1980

5. Learned Counsel for the Society accordingly pressed for my consideration the other objection to the maintainability of the suits namely -that the Industrial Disputes Act provides for a comprehensive procedure and an adequate remedy for dismissed workmen, and thereby the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is impliedly barred in such matters. He relied on two decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court in Krishnan v. E.I.D. & Section Factories and Madura Mills Co. Limited v. Guruvammal and Anr. (1967) 2 Lab.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

A. Khan Mohammed vs P. Narayanan Nambiar And Ors. on 14 August, 1986

4. The second point urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of the appellate authority that the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(iii), are not applicable is not correct. The appellate authority differing from the Rent Controller held that the landlord has taken possession of shop B from his vendor after the sale deed. First of all, though this is a finding on a question of fact, I am unable to agree with the same as there is absolutely no evidence. As held by this Court in Madurai Mills Ltd. v. Guruvammal , a revisional authority can interfere with a finding of fact also if there is no other material on which such a finding could be based or, the finding has been reached by a consideration of irrelevant or inadmissible matter, or it is so perverse that no reasonable person could have reached that conclusion or the finding had been reached by an erroneous understanding of the law applicable to the particular matter.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

This Is A Suit For Mandatory Injunction vs Unknown on 19 May, 2007

9. Supreme Court further held that the Industrial Disputes Act not only confers the right on a worker for reinstatement and back wages if the order of termination or dismissal is not in accordance with the Standing Orders but also provides a detailed procedure and machinery for getting this relief. Under these circumstances, there is an apparent implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next