Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.02 seconds)Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) ... vs T.M. Nagarajan And Ors. on 4 December, 1987
In India Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. T. M. Nagarajan & Others 1988 Lab. IC. 1067 (Delhi) Sapra, J. of the Delhi High Court has, while construing Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, held that it does not bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court either to entertain the suit in regard to trade dispute or pass an ad-in-terim injunction order.
Deena @ Deena Dayal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 23 September, 1983
He invited my attention to the observations in Deena v. Union of India for the proposition that when a particular provision of law was neither raised specifically not considered directly by the Court, the said decision cannot be considered as a binding precedent.
Section 24 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rama Vilas Service Ltd. And Anr. vs Simpson And Group Companies Workers' ... on 31 July, 1979
In Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., and another v. Simpson and Group Companies Worker's Union and another. (1979-II-LLJ-284), a portion of para-7 of the judgment reads thus (P.289) :
The Trade Unions Act, 1926
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Chitra Venkata Rao on 29 August, 1975
In my view the above decision answers all the points raised by the appellant-defendant though Mr. Narasimha Murthy contended that the said decision is an authority in the context of strike by the employees and not in the context of lock-out declared by the employer. I do not think that protection under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act to the workers gets enlarged or constricted depending upon 'strike' situation or 'lock-out' situation. The consideration and the principle are one and the same for both the situations.
1