Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.55 seconds)Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs S.E. Phadtare And Ors. on 30 November, 1993
16. This Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. S. E. Phadtare (supra) has already come to the conclusion that the powers of the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act are not analogous to the powers of the Labour Court exercised under Section 78 of the BIR Act. But this does not necessarily mean that the Labour Court cannot take a view different from the view taken by the Enquiry Officer on the same evidence led before the enquiry officer. If the Labour Court takes a different view in the matter on account of there being insufficient evidence, there is no need for the Labour Court to permit the employer to lead evidence afresh. The employer must be permitted to lead evidence afresh when there is no enquiry held or there is a defective enquiry, either because it is procedurally defective or because the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. In the present case, the Labour Court was of the view that the findings could not be termed as perverse but the evidence was not sufficient to establish the case against the petitioner. It was not a case where there was no evidence on record or evidence which could not be relied on and neither was it a case where the enquiry officer had misdirected himself while assessing the evidence and other material before him. The Labour Court merely found that the evidence was not sufficient to bring home the guilt against the workman concerned.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., ... vs Pratap Vishnu Dhuri And Ors. on 11 July, 2001
9. Several other Judgments have been cited by the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 in support of her submissions including E. Merck (India) Limited, Bombay v. V. N. Parulekar and Ors., 1991 Mh.L.J. 540 = 1991 II CLR 73, Bhavani Metal Works v. Pandurang R. Sawant and Ors., 1991 I CLR 147; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Habib Bismillah Khan and Anr., 2001(3) Mh.LJ. 180 = 2001 II CLR 871; Union of India v. K. Subramanium Ex.J.C, 2001 II CLR 883; S. K. Awasthy v. Mr. Bhope and Ors., 1994 1 CLR 254; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pratap Vishnu Dhuri and Ors., 2002(3) Mh.LJ. 341 = 2001 III CLR 335; Janata Bazar v. Secretary, Sahakari Nankarara Sangh and Ors., ; UP State Transport Corporation v. Mohanlal Gupta and Ors., 2001 LIC 2122; Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Pathanamthitta and Ors. v. A. Gopalan, 1999 I LLJ 191 and Workmen of Firestone v. Management and Ors., .
Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central ... vs The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara ... on 21 September, 2000
9. Several other Judgments have been cited by the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 in support of her submissions including E. Merck (India) Limited, Bombay v. V. N. Parulekar and Ors., 1991 Mh.L.J. 540 = 1991 II CLR 73, Bhavani Metal Works v. Pandurang R. Sawant and Ors., 1991 I CLR 147; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Habib Bismillah Khan and Anr., 2001(3) Mh.LJ. 180 = 2001 II CLR 871; Union of India v. K. Subramanium Ex.J.C, 2001 II CLR 883; S. K. Awasthy v. Mr. Bhope and Ors., 1994 1 CLR 254; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pratap Vishnu Dhuri and Ors., 2002(3) Mh.LJ. 341 = 2001 III CLR 335; Janata Bazar v. Secretary, Sahakari Nankarara Sangh and Ors., ; UP State Transport Corporation v. Mohanlal Gupta and Ors., 2001 LIC 2122; Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Pathanamthitta and Ors. v. A. Gopalan, 1999 I LLJ 191 and Workmen of Firestone v. Management and Ors., .
Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices, ... vs A. Gopalan on 21 February, 1997
9. Several other Judgments have been cited by the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 in support of her submissions including E. Merck (India) Limited, Bombay v. V. N. Parulekar and Ors., 1991 Mh.L.J. 540 = 1991 II CLR 73, Bhavani Metal Works v. Pandurang R. Sawant and Ors., 1991 I CLR 147; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Habib Bismillah Khan and Anr., 2001(3) Mh.LJ. 180 = 2001 II CLR 871; Union of India v. K. Subramanium Ex.J.C, 2001 II CLR 883; S. K. Awasthy v. Mr. Bhope and Ors., 1994 1 CLR 254; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pratap Vishnu Dhuri and Ors., 2002(3) Mh.LJ. 341 = 2001 III CLR 335; Janata Bazar v. Secretary, Sahakari Nankarara Sangh and Ors., ; UP State Transport Corporation v. Mohanlal Gupta and Ors., 2001 LIC 2122; Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Pathanamthitta and Ors. v. A. Gopalan, 1999 I LLJ 191 and Workmen of Firestone v. Management and Ors., .
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
Section HAhas been interpreted by the Apex Court in case of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra).
M/S. Raman & Raman Ltd vs The State Of Madras & Others on 18 February, 1959
In Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras, while examining the ambit of the jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Madras) Amendment Act, 1948 to interfere with the orders of subordinate Regional Transport Authority on the ground of propriety, this Court observed as under :
Moti Ram vs Suraj Bhan & Others on 3 February, 1960
In Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan while examining the scope and ambit of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, this Court observed as under :