Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.53 seconds)
The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 4 August, 2011 cites

Associated Cement Staff Union And The ... vs The Associated Cement Co. Ltd., Bombay, ... on 3 December, 1963

30. If the warning handed down in Associated Cement's case and the subsequent pronouncement in Mumbai Port Trust case are kept in mind, the Tribunal would not have interfered with the timings fixed by the petitioner Hospital. As already noted, the Tribunal had not given any single reason to modify the shift hours except bringing its own concept of overlapping shift and lean hours during which patients will take rest. The Tribunal also did not look into the pleadings of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence let in by the petitioner Hospital.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

The Management Of Binny Ltd. (B & C Mills) vs The Govt. Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 12 December, 1987

20. The learned counsel further submitted that if a settlement is holding the field, the question of the Tribunal adjudicating the said dispute will not arise. For this purpose, he relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in The Management of Binny Ltd., (B & C Mills) v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1989 1 LLJ 180 and referred to the following passage found in paragraph 32, which is as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors vs Mumbai Port Trust & Anr on 15 November, 2010

30. If the warning handed down in Associated Cement's case and the subsequent pronouncement in Mumbai Port Trust case are kept in mind, the Tribunal would not have interfered with the timings fixed by the petitioner Hospital. As already noted, the Tribunal had not given any single reason to modify the shift hours except bringing its own concept of overlapping shift and lean hours during which patients will take rest. The Tribunal also did not look into the pleadings of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence let in by the petitioner Hospital.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 183 - M Katju - Full Document
1