Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Radhey Shyam And Anr. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 24 November, 1997

The Management Of Tractor'S And Farms ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, B. ... on 25 July, 2007

In the case of Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1999 (2) L.L.N 497, it has been held after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court that Section 2A contemplates nothing more than to declare an individual dispute to be an industrial dispute. It does not amend the definition of industrial dispute set out in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (which is similar to Section 2(1) of the said 1947 Act). Section 2A does not cover every type of dispute between an individual workman and his employer. Section 2A enables the individual worker to raise an industrial dispute, notwithstanding, that no other workmen or union is a party to the dispute. Section 2A applies only to disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of an individual workman. It does not cover other kinds of disputes such as bonus, wages, leave facilities etc.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - K Chandru - Full Document

Larsen And Toubro Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 8 February, 2011

In the case of Radhey Shyam and another v. State of Haryana and another, 1998 II LKLJ 1217, it has been held after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court that, Section 2-A contemplates nothing more than to declare an individual dispute to be an industrial dispute. It does not amend the definition of industrial dispute set out in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (which is similar to Section 2(i) of the said 1947 Act). Section 2-A does not cover every type of dispute between an individual workman and his employer. Section 2-A enables the individual worker to raise an industrial dispute, notwithstanding, that no other workmen or union is a party to the dispute. Section 2-A applies only to disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of an individual workman. It does not cover other kinds of disputes such as bonus, wages, leave facilities etc."
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Presiding Officer on 12 April, 2011

In the case of Radhey Shyam and Anr. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 1998 II LLJ 1217 it has been held after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court that, Section 2-A contemplates nothing more than to declare an individual dispute to be an industrial dispute. It does not amend the definition of industrial dispute set out in Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (which is similar to Section 2 (1) of the said 1947 Act). Section 2-A does not cover every type of dispute between an individual workman and his employer. Section 2-A enables the individual worker to raise an industrial dispute, notwithstanding, that no other workmen or union is a party to the dispute. Section 2-A applies only to disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of an individual workman..."
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 25 July, 2007

In the case of Radhey Shyam and another v. State of Haryana and another [1999 (2) L.L.N 497], it has been held after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court that Section 2A contemplates nothing more than to declare an individual dispute to be an industrial dispute. It does not amend the definition of industrial dispute set out in S.2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (which is similar to S.2(1) of the said 1947 Act). Section 2A does not cover every type of dispute between an individual workman and his employer. Section 2A enables the individual worker to raise an industrial dispute, notwithstanding, that no other workmen or union is a party to the dispute. Section 2A applies only to disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of an individual workman. It does not cover other kinds of disputes such as bonus, wages, leave facilities etc.,."
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 25 July, 2007

In the case of Radhey Shyam and another v. State of Haryana and another [1999 (2) L.L.N 497], it has been held after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court that Section 2A contemplates nothing more than to declare an individual dispute to be an industrial dispute. It does not amend the definition of industrial dispute set out in S.2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (which is similar to S.2(1) of the said 1947 Act). Section 2A does not cover every type of dispute between an individual workman and his employer. Section 2A enables the individual worker to raise an industrial dispute, notwithstanding, that no other workmen or union is a party to the dispute. Section 2A applies only to disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of an individual workman. It does not cover other kinds of disputes such as bonus, wages, leave facilities etc.,."
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Sh. Dev Nath Tiwari S/O Late Sh. Saryoog ... vs (1) Ms/ Travel Corporation (India) Pvt. ... on 30 August, 2014

2005 SC 3202; Shri L.M. Khosla, Appellant Vs. Thai Airways International Public Company Limited and Anr., Respondents, D.I.D. No. 182/09 Page 10 out of 47 MANU/DE/3868/2012; Judgment dated 05.02.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4354/2013 titled M/s Bhawani Dass Rameshwar Dutt­Petitioner Vs. Bali Karan­Respondent; M/s British Paints (India) Limited­ Appellant Vs. Its Workmen­ Respondents, AIR 1966 SC 732; Shri K.A. Mohandas Vs. National Centre for the Performing Arts (NCPA) & Anr., 2013 LLR 609, Bombay High Court; Radhey Shyam and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. (1998) II LLJ 1217 PH and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Anil and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1715 in support of his submissions on behalf of the management.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tools Ltd. vs . Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh 1976 Lab. 1C190 ... on 2 December, 2008

In the case of Radhey Shyam and Another V. State of Haryana and Another 1998­II­LLJ­ 1217 (P&H) it has been held after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court that, Section 2­A contemplates nothing more than to declare an individual dispute to be an industrial dispute. It does not amend the definition of industrial dispute set out in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( which is similar to Section 2(1) of the said 1947 (Act). Section 2­A does not cover every type of dispute between an individual workman and his employer.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Management vs The Labour Court on 26 August, 2025

11.The learned counsel appearing for the management had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 (2) LLN 497 (Radhey Shyam and another Vs. State of Haryana and another) to contend that Section 2-A applies only to the disputes and the differences relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of an individual 7/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.8623 to 8629 of 2017 and 5939 to 5942 of 2018 workmen. Therefore, the contractual employees cannot invoke Section 2-A and approach the Labour Court.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document
1