Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)
_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 14 May, 2024 cites

M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh vs The State Of M. P. And Anr on 27 February, 1985

As has been held in M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh case [(1985) 2 SCC 103 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 409 : (1985) 2 SCR 1019] , there may be exceptional cases in which the State Government may, on a proper examination of the demand, come to a conclusion that the demands are either perverse or frivolous and do not merit a reference. Further, the Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a view to declining reference and courts will always be vigilant whenever the Government attempts to usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of valid disputes, and that to allow the Government to do so would be to render Section 10 and Section 12(5) of the Act nugatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 203 - V Khalid - Full Document

Anakapalla Co-Operative Agricultural ... vs Workmen on 23 October, 1962

"17. The effect of Section 25-FF which is explained by this Court in Anakapalli Cooperative Agricultural and Industrial Society Limited v. Workmen [AIR 1963 SC 1489 : (1963) 1 Supp SCR 730 : 1962 (2) Lab LJ 621] is, so far as it is relevant, ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2024 20:32:04 :::CIS 16 as follows: (i) the first part of the section postulates that on a transfer of the ownership or management of an undertaking, the employment of workmen engaged by the said undertaking .
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 83 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh S/O Shri vs State Of H.P. & Others on 30 March, 2022

29. Next question, which arises for consideration of this Court is "whether Labour Commissioner without ascertaining the correctness of the demand and existence of industrial dispute, if any, could straightway make reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal". Answer to aforesaid question has been already answered in case titled Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 SCC online HP 1020, wherein Full Bench of this Court having taken note of various judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, categorically held that appropriate government in discharging the administrative function of taking a decisions to make or refuse to make reference of the industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act, has to apply its mind on relevant considerations and has not to act mechanically as a post office.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 236 - Full Document

Shambu Nath Goyal vs Bank Of Baroda, Jullundur on 2 February, 1978

14. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in the above decisions, there can be no doubt that the Government was not justified in deciding the dispute. Where, as in the instant case, the dispute is whether the persons raising the dispute are workmen or not, the same cannot be decided by the Government in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10(1) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 150 - D A Desai - Full Document

Jawaharlal Nehru University vs Dr. K.S. Jawatkar & Ors on 12 May, 1989

"10. Elaborate arguments were advanced on the question as to whether an employee's consent is a must under Section 25-FF of the Act. The common law rule that an employee cannot be transferred without consent, applies in master-servant relationship and not to statutory transfers. Though great emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the respondent on Jawaharlal Nehru University v. Dr. K.S. Jawatkar [1989 Supp (1) SCC 679 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 501 : (1989) 11 ATC 278] , a close reading of the judgment makes it clear that the common law rule was applied. But there is not any specific reference to Section 25-FF or its implication. There is nothing in the wording of Section 25-FF even remotely to suggest that consent is a pre-requisite for transfer. The underlying purpose of Section 25-FF is to establish a continuity of service and to secure benefits otherwise not available to a workman if a break in service to another employer was accepted. Therefore, the letter of consent of the individual employee cannot be a ground to invalidate the action."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 379 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Shambu Nath Goyal vs Bank Of Baroda And Others on 27 September, 1983

35 lac was made. Though, there were two other demands as taken note hereinabove, but same already stood taken care of by the petitioner-company while executing transfer/sale agreement dated 15.12.2022 with HFL. While interpreting Section 2 (k) of the Act, wherein Industrial Dispute came to be defined, Hon'ble Apex Court in Shambu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda, (1978) 2 Supreme Court Cases 353, held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 258 - D A Desai - Full Document
1