Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 300 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing National Engineering Industries Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 1 December, 1999

Manager (Hrm vs Ajit Kumar Reported At (2000) 3 Scc 93 Is ... on 21 September, 2011

4. Mr Thakur contends that the order of Reference dated 21.1.2010 is bad as it does not show any application of mind by appropriate Government and it also suffers from vagueness. He contends that what is referred is not an industrial dispute at all, and in any case, points raised in petitioner's written notes of arguments before Conciliation Officer have not been kept open. He contends that as clause 33 of the Settlement prohibited the workmen and Union from raising any dispute either individually or collectively demanding any benefit tending to cast additional financial burden on the Company during the currency of the Settlement, appropriate Government ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:38 ::: 6 should not have permitted Reference to be made contrary to clause 33. It is further pointed out that the demand itself is contrary to law as settled by Honourable Apex Court in National Engineering Industries Ltd v. State of Rajasthan at (2000) 1 SCC 371 & Air Freight Limited v. State of Karnataka reported at (1999) 6 SCC 567. Article 141 of the Constitution of India, therefore, required respondent no. 2 not to make any such Reference. Lastly, it is contended that grounds raised in defence to assail the demand on merit have not been referred and since those grounds are not referred, petitioner is not in a position to urge those grounds before the Industrial Tribunal in Reference proceedings. It is, therefore, urged that there is failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of respondent no. 2.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sri Veereswara Spinning Mills (P) Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2010

"48.As observed in the decisions referred to above, even for taking an administrative decision, the authority concerned must apply his mind to the relevant considerations and the relevant materials before it. In this case, the Central Government should have atleast applied its mind to the objections raised by the writ petitioner namely, that workmen concerned were not the workmen of the writ petitioner but that of the contractor and moreover the claims of the workmen were already settled. The writ petitioner had specifically alleged that the petitioner was not the direct employer of the workers concerned at any point of time, and this contention had been accepted earlier. No doubt, it is not necessary that there should be some fresh facts for changing its opinion but nevertheless it was incumbent upon the Central Government to have applied its mind to the objections of the writ petitioner that the workmen concerned were not its employees but the employees of the contractor. If the employees concerned were not the employees of the writ petitioner obviously there was no dispute between them could be referred for adjudication. Also, if the claims of the workmen concerned had already been settled there was no dispute which could be referred. The learned Single Judge has only remitted the matter to the Central Government for a fresh consideration and we see nothing objectionable or illegal in this direction."
Madras High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Bhag Singh vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 19 August, 2020

thereupons, concomitantly, delays, and, latches, in the making, of, claims for relief significantly, at, the pre-reference stage, hence would become denuded, vis-a-vis, their vigour, only upon, evidence surging forth qua the employer assuring the employee to reinstate him, in, employment, (b) and, upon, the employee/workman bringingforth tangible exemplificatory qua workmen junior to him still serving, or that r material retrenched junior workmen being re-employed, hence, subsequent to the apposite retrenchment occurring or happening, (c) whereupon, the, principle of an industrial dispute being alive or in existence would become satisfied, and, also would not attract the bars, of delays, and, latches at the pre reference stage, raised thereagainst, and, as, become expostulated in National Engineering Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) and in Nedungadi Bank Ltd.'s case (supra). Imperatively hence, all, the, afore facilitative parameters, to the, petitioner, are unavailable qua him nor are proven by him.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 25 - S Thakur - Full Document

The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs General Manager on 20 August, 2021

upon, the merits of the referred industrial dispute. The afore starkingly visible prevailing factual matrix, in, Raghubir Singh's case (supra), reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5515, hence, postulates or portrays, a, post reference stage/scenario, and, obviously, does not contemplate, a pre reference stage/scenario. (c) Therefore, the afore verdict is straightway distinguishable, from, factual matrix prevailing herein, besides it does not carry the apposite ratio decidendi, vis-a-vis, the exercisings, of, jurisdiction(s) by the Appropriate Government, at the, pre reference stage, nor does bar the Appropriate Government, to, mete deference, to, the verdicts supra rendered in National Engineerings case (supra), and, in Nedungadi Bank Ltd.'s case supra. .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Thakur - Full Document

The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs General Manager on 27 August, 2021

stage/scenario. (c) Therefore, the afore verdict is straightway distinguishable, from, factual matrix prevailing herein, besides it does not carry the apposite ratio decidendi, vis­a­vis, the exercisings, of, jurisdiction(s) by the Appropriate Government, at the, pre reference stage, nor does bar the Appropriate Government, to, mete deference, to, the verdicts supra rendered in National Engineerings case (supra), and, in Nedungadi Bank Ltd.'s case supra.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Thakur - Full Document

Manager, Air Control Engineering Co. ... vs Kanaiyalal Ghusabhai Kunvaria on 8 March, 2000

8. Now, I consider the pronouncements of various Courts cited by Mr. Chari. The judgment in matter of National Engineering Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan (supra) is not in respect to the preliminary issue but it relates to the power of the High Court to entertain writ petition challenging the terms of reference where there is allegation that there is no industrial dispute. Therefore, the said judgment is not relating to the preliminary point which has been canvassed by Mr. Chari.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - H K Rathod - Full Document

The Management Of Apsrtc Rep. By Its Vice ... vs The Workmen Of The Apsrtc Rep. By Its ... on 22 April, 2008

Reliance is placed on National Engineering Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan to contend that a settlement, entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was binding on all workmen of the establishment and, therefore, the respondent Union was not justified in seeking a reference with regards their entitlement for payment of the difference between the ex-gratia, as per the pre-amended and the amended Payment of Bonus Act. It is also contended that the strike notice issued by the respondent Union on 15.03.1997 was without justification as the recognized Union had already issued a strike notice for the said cause which ultimately culminated in the memorandum of settlement dated 27.03.1997 and, since there was no pending dispute, the State Government had no jurisdiction to make the reference on 18.03.1997. Learned Counsel would contend that, less than a month after the settlement was entered into on 27.03.1997, the present dispute was referred, that since the employees Union did not raise any fresh dispute thereafter, the State Government had no jurisdiction to make the reference on 18.04.1997 and that the reference itself was illegal and invalid. Learned Counsel would contend that Clause 13.2 of the settlement dated 21.10.1997 did not mean that the impugned reference was valid or that there was a dispute necessitating adjudication by the date of the reference or that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the reference. According to the Learned Counsel the dispute, in the order of reference, was not an "industrial dispute" as even if the reference was answered in the affirmative, the employees would not get anything thereby, for the reference was not whether ex-gratia was payable to them for the year 1993-94 as per the amended Payment of Bonus Act. Learned Counsel would contend that the respondent Union was not entitled to raise the dispute with regards payment of differential ex-gratia, that there was no industrial dispute in existence at the time of making the reference on 17.04.1997, that the reference made was not genuine and that the State Government had no authority to make the reference. It is also contended that the Tribunal had gone beyond the scope of the reference in holding that employees of the petitioner corporation were entitled to be paid the difference between the ex-gratia payable to them as per the amended Payment of Bonus Act, and the actual ex-gratia paid as per the pre-amended Act, when there was no reference made in that regard. According to the Learned Counsel, the question whether employees of the APSRTC were entitled to ex-gratia for the year 1993-94, and whether they were entitled to the difference between the ex-gratia payable to them as per the amended Act and the ex-gratia paid to them under the pre- amended Act, were two distinct and different subjects, each independent of the other, that the latter was not incidental to the former and, even if the reference was answered affirmatively, it did not follow that employees of the APSRTC would be entitled to the difference. It is contended that grant of enhanced ex-gratia for the year 1993-94, based on the amended Payment of Bonus Act, depended on several factors, that the Payment of Bonus Act had no application to the APSRTC, that the employees of the Corporation had no statutory right to claim ex-gratia as per the rate fixed under the Payment of Bonus Act, that the right of employees of the corporation to claim ex-gratia for any particular period could only be in accordance with the agreement/settlement entered into between the petitioner and the recognized Union under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act, that otherwise employees of the Corporation had no legal right to claim ex-gratia at a particular rate for a particular year unless that right was conferred on them by settlements/agreements entered into between the recognized Union and the Management and that, in the instant case, there was no agreement/settlement between the parties as to the grant of ex-gratia at 8.33%. It is contended that, from the various G.Os issued by the State Government, it was evident that the corporation was not entitled to pay ex-gratia to its employees unless profits accrued, and, even if there were profits, only with the prior approval of the State Government. Reference is made to the memo dated 26.05.1994 whereunder the State Government had clarified that ex-gratia could be paid to eligible employees of public enterprises only when there were accumulated profits, that too on receipt of prior approval of the State Government.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 56 - Cited by 3 - R Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next