Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.45 seconds)
Anand Oil Industries vs Labour Court, Hyderabad And Ors. on 28 December, 1978 cites

Town Municipal Council, Athani vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli ... on 20 March, 1969

53. The Supreme Court in Athani Municipality v. Labour Court. Hubli , considered the question "Whether the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to deal with the claims of the workmen under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was barred by the fart that the same relief could have been claimed by the workmen under S. 20 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act." Before dealing with that question the Supreme Court clearly pointed out in para 4 of the judgment that "it was not contended either before the Labour Court or in the writ petition before the High Court that the applications were not covered by the provisions of S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The plea taken was that even if the applications could be made under S.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to proceed under that provision of law was barred by the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. Mr. B. Sen appearing on behalf of the appellant wanted permission to raise a question whether these applications be fore the Labour Court were at all included within the scope of S. 33C (2) of the Act. But on the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents the permission sought was refused. As we have mentioned earlier. the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on this ground was not challenged either before the Labour Court itself or before the High Court. No such ground was raised even in the special leave petition nor was it raised at any earlier stage by any application. It was sought to be raised by Mr. Sen for the first time in the course of the arguments in the appeal at the time of final hearing. We do not consider it correct to allow such a new point raised at this late stage, Proceeding to deal with that contention the Supreme Court held (at pp 1340, 1341 of AIR):
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 377 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Major D. Aranha vs Universal Radiators And Ors. on 9 April, 1974

"It is also clear that according to the provisions of Section 39 of the Payment of Bonus Act, until and unless specifically provided in this Ad overriding the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have been made applicable. Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, in our opinion does not exclude filing of an application under 5. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for the payment of Bonus." No doubt in E.E. C. of India v. Labour Court Madras (1975 Lab IC: 1181), (Aranha v. Universal Radiators, 1973 Lab IC 1180?) the Madras High Court has held that S. 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act excludes a petition u/s. 33-C (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Gopal Bhiva & Ors on 9 May, 1963

"It is no doubt true that the work men could claim the difference between the minimum wages fixed by the Government and the amount Paid by the Committee for the period in dispute viz., 12 May 1960 to 1 June 1961 by filing an application under S. 20. The contention that the present dispute could only be decided by the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act has no force......" It further held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, . supports the view t that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute despite the fact that it could also be decided under the Minimum Wages Act. In that decision, the Court was not concerned with the question whether a petition under S. 33-C 12) was entertainable in respect of a claim for minimum wage, That decision, however. indicates that even if the matter was entertainable under the Minimum Wages Act, the jurisdiction of the other Authorities to entertain such a claim is not barred. Though this decision supports the petitioner's contention that there could he a reference under S. 10 (1) with respect to a claim for minimum wage the question whether a petitioner under S. 33-C (2) lies or not in respect of statutory minimum wage was neither raised nor considered in that decision. It cannot, therefore, he treated as an Authority for the proposition: such a petition is not entertainable under S. 33-C (21 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the contrary it supports the contention that the Authorities other than those constituted under the Minimum Wages Act could entertain a claim in respect of a matter covered by the Minimum Wages Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 318 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Laxman Tulsiram vs Dayalal Meghji And Co. Badashahi Bidi ... on 18 November, 1966

67. Mr. Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxman Tulsiram v. Dayalal Meghji & Co., , in which a Division Bench of that Court held that the claim for difference in wages actually paid and that payable under the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Compensation Act is not maintainable under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Act and that only a petition under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act could be filed. This decision proceeds Upon the footing that the claim made by the employees was not under any settlement, award or under the provisions of Chap. VI of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Bench did not take into ac count the fad that the claim was based upon an existing statutory right and in respect of such claim a petition under S. 33-C (2) lies.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Ambica Mills Ltd., No. 2, Ahmedabad vs Second Labour Court [Master (D.L.), ... on 15 September, 1967

The view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that a claim for calculation of the benefit to which workman is entitled under the provisions of any statute other than the industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable under S. 33-C (2) cannot be upheld having regard to the view in Ambica Mills v. Second Labour Court, (19671 2 Lab LJ 800 (Guj) referred to above wherein it a clearly laid down that the remedy under S. 33-C (2) is not restricted to claim based on a settlement, award or a right created under Chap. V-A or V-B If the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Gurusharansingh Brijbhusansingh vs Manager, Rewa Transport Services And ... on 5 April, 1967

17-11-1978) 68, Mr, Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance also on another decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gurusharansingh v. Rewa Transport Services, where the court was concerned with the question whether a claim for minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 could be made under S. 20 of the Act or under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. That Court held that the claim is entertainable under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act and not under Sec. 15 of the Payment of 'Wages Act It must, how ever, be Pointed out that the court was not there concerned with the question whether a petition under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was barred in view of S. 20 or any other Provision of the Minimum Wages Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran ... vs State Of Punjab Through The Secretary To ... on 29 October, 1965

In Municipal Committee, Tarntarn v. State of Punjab, the contention raised was that the Minimum Wage denied by the Municipal Committee to its employees should be adjudicated only by the Authorities under the Minimum Wages Act and that it cannot be referred to an Industrial Tribunal by the Government under S. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act was repelled and It was held (at p. 371 of AIR):
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 9 - I D Dua - Full Document
1   2 Next