Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 109 (1.78 seconds)
Documents citing Excel Wear Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1978

Laxmi Starch Ltd. And Ors. vs Kundara Factory Workers' Union And Ors. on 14 November, 1991

Another single Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd. Industrial Tribunal (1991-II-LLJ-159) also struck down Section 6-W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which corresponds to Section 25-O of the Act in question holding that Parliament was not able to remove the basis upon which the Supreme Court in Excel Wear's case (supra) took the view that the old Section 25-O imposed excessive and unreasonable restrictions within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The decision said that even under the present Section 25-O, an employer can be compelled not to close down his undertaking in spite of the fact that both from the point of view of security and finance it will be impossible for him to do so and he can still be compelled to pay minimum wages to the employees even though he is not capable of doing so. The decision went on to say that even now he can be compelled to carry on his business on pain of being completely ruined and eventually annihilated and the Legislature has not given a thought to the via media evolved by the Supreme Court in resolving the conflict between the interest of the employer and the interest of the labour in the event of the closure of an undertaking by providing for a graded compensation or different slabs of compensation to meet different situations.
Kerala High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

K. Gurumurthy, Authorised ... vs Simpson And Co. And Ors. on 9 April, 1981

17. The contesting respondents seek leave of this Court for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment just now pronounced. Since we have followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978) 2 L.L.J. 527 : 1978 Lab. I.C., we do not think that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence the request for leave is rejected.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 20 December, 1991

15. To the argument sought to be advanced by the respondents to the effect that the closure should not be permitted because interest of labour will be affected, Sri Gupta referred first to the case of Excel Wear v. Union of India and Ors. 1978 II LLJ 527 (vide supra), the parent case which struck down the provisions of Section 25-O before its present amendment. Sri Gupta: wanted to establish that the interest of labour alone cannot be sole criterion for refusing permission to close down because in all cases of closures there will be resultant unemployment.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Papnasam Labour Union vs Madura Coats Ltd on 8 December, 1994

It has been indicated in Meenakshi Mills case2 that ordinarily any restriction so imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a directive principle can be presumed to be reasonable restriction in public interest and a restriction imposed on the employer's right to terminate the service of an employee is not alien to the constitutional scheme 13 State of Madras v. VG. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 : 1952 SCR 597; State of U.P. v. Kaushailiya, AIR 1964 SC: 416: (1964) 4 SCR 1002; Bachan Singh v. State a Punjab, (1971) 1 SCC 712 AIR 1971 SC 2164; Pathumma v. State a Kerala, (1978)2 SCC 1 : AIR 1978 SC 771 14 Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 2 SCC 670: AIR 1977 SC 1825; Excel Wear v. Union of India, (1978) 4 SCC 224: 1978 SCC (L&S) 509 :(1979) 1 SCR 1009 15 Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 146 1; State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 : 1976, SCC (L&S) 227 : AIR 1976 SC 490; Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 SCC 1 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 19 - G N Ray - Full Document

K.V. Rajendran vs Dy. Commissioner Of Labour, Madurai And ... on 20 March, 1980

13. The learned counsel for the respondents would, however, point out that though there are no specific guidelines provided in the section, elaborate details which the applicant has to give in the prescribed form for applying for permission will sufficiently guide the authority in the matter of grant of permission, and, therefore, it cannot be said that S. 25N is bad for the reason that no guidelines are given therein. But the Supreme Court in the above case has rejected an identical contention put forward on behalf of the Union of India by observing that all the comprehensive and detailed information given in the application form are of no avail to the employer if the law permits the authority to pass capricious, whimsical and one sided orders without actually providing guidelines and without providing for rectification of the order by any higher authority in appeal or in revision. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that a bare possibility that powers may he misused or abused cannot per se make the power bad and the power having been entrusted to the Government and not to any petty official, the abuse of power cannot be easily assumed. The power under S. 25N(2) can be exercised not only by the appropriate Government but also by a subordinate authority if authorised by that Government. The power to grant permission may be exercised by other authorities as well. It is not, therefore, possible, to accept the above submission as tenable.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Managing Director M/S Devyani Food ... vs Coram on 26 February, 2024

(as it then stood), even if the reasons are adequate and sufficient, approval could be denied in purported public interest or security of labour. It was submitted that even now permission to close could be refused even if the reasons were genuine and adequate. It was submitted that this was a substantive vice which still prevailed in the amended Section 25-O. We do not read the Excel Wear case [(1978) 4 SCC 224:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Badri Narayan Saha And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 2 November, 1998

The Supreme Court in Excel Wear v. Union of India (supra) was dealing with a case under Section 25-O which provided for closure of an undertaking. In the instant case, the petitioners have not closed their business but have merely declared lock-out. The said decision, therefore, cannot be of any assistance. That apart, the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Act is only of temporary duration, i. e., till the matter is settled by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. The restriction placed by an order passed under Section 10(3) is a reasonable restriction which is squarely covered by Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. The first submission of the learned counsel is accordingly rejected.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R A Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next