Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)
Divisional Manager vs Hari Arjun Gavit on 19 February, 2015 cites

The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees Of The Bharat Bank ... on 26 May, 1950

6 and 9 of the Schedule and answered the issue no.1 in favour of the workman. The said findings are not rightly interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The same is challenged before this Court. This Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, particularly, having recorded objected items of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 in relation to the industrial dispute adjudication made by the Special Court constituted under the said Act, namely, the Industrial Court which has got every power to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties and incorporate such terms and conditions in the Award is the legal position of law laid down by this Court in long back in the year 1950 in Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs. Employees of 7 Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi, reported in AIR 1950 SC 188. In view of the said legal position we do not find fault with the findings of fact recorded on the contentious issues by the Industrial Court and the concurrent findings of fact by the High Court for our interference with the impugned judgment. The submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there are no permanent post or posts are not approved by the State Government in the Corporation also cannot be accepted by this Court. The appellant herein is a Forest Corporation which is a statutory creature. The Industrial Court has also rightly adverted to the provisions of the Industrial Employment (standard orders) Act, 1946 and Companies Act in support of its justification to record the findings holding that the appellant Corporation has contravened of the item nos. 6 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 405 - H J Kania - Full Document
1