Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 107 (3.51 seconds)
Documents citing Basant Kumar Sarkar And Others vs Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. And Others on 26 February, 1964

V.P.R. College Beedi Company Rep. By Its ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Its ... on 21 March, 2003

In view of the above well-settled principles laid down in the above cases that the Employees' Insurance Court alone can go into the question, even as to the applicability of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, I am of the considered opinion that it may not be proper for this Court to give a finding on that aspect.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Chandmoni Majhin vs Coal India Ltd. & Ors on 29 April, 2016

"15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - S Ahluwalia - Full Document

N. Varadarajan (Co-Operative ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Secretary ... on 4 October, 2001

"We are not impressed by this argument. Section 1(3) is really not an illustration of delegated legislation at all; it is what can be properly described as conditional legislation. The Act has prescribed a self-contained code in regard to the insurance of the employees covered by it; several remedial measures which the Legislature thought it necessary to enforce in regard to such workmen have been specifically dealt with and appropriate provisions have been made to carry out the policy of the Act as laid down in its relevant Sections. Section 1(3) of the Act purports to authorise the Central Government to establish a Corporation for the administration of the scheme of Employees' State Insurance by a notification. In other words, when the notification should be issued and in respect of what factories it should be issued, has been left to the discretion of the Central Government and that is precisely what is usually done by conditional legislation.
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 10 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Limited ... vs P.G. Koranne And Ors. on 1 February, 1983

This can only be done by an agency which has before it sufficient information and data with respect to all societies and which is capable of having knowledge of changing circumstances. This information and knowledge can only be possessed by the State Government and its department which deal with co-operative societies. Section 73BB of the Act, while providing that all societies can be brought within the scope of the section, has, therefore, left it to the State Government to decide to which societies the said section would apply. The said section, therefore is a type of legislation as was before the Court in the Edward Mills Company's case , Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mill Company's case , the case of Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. and in Mohmedalli v. Union of India , Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Company , and Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. Kunjabmu . In our opinion, therefore, Section 73BB can properly be described as a piece of conditional legislation.
Bombay High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 2 - D P Madon - Full Document

National Jute Manufacturing ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 September, 1993

In the case of Basant Kumar, (supra) a notification had been challenged, which sought to bring employees of certain companies under the Act. The main grievance was that the petitioners were already getting satisfactory medical benefits of a very high order free of charge. The main grievance of the petitioners was that as a result of the notification they would have to be content with medical benefits of a less satisfactory nature. The Supreme Court was of the view that this was a question which should be determined under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act or if possible under Section 74 or 75 of the Act and not under Article 226.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - R Pal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next