Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)Section 17 in The Trade Unions Act, 1926 [Entire Act]
Hotel Hindustan International ... vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 7 July, 2006
The other argument based on collective bargaining by reference to
Chapter III-A, West Bengal Amendment regarding recognition of trade
unions as sole bargaining agent appears to be misconceived. In the first
place, the petitioner has not applied for recognition as a sole bargaining
agent. Secondly the said amended provisions are not applicable in the
instant case. The petitioner has failed to disclose any document to show
that the petitioner has been recognized as a bargaining agent. Moreover,
in Hotel Hindusthan International Employee's & Workers' Union
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) CHN 188 it was
held that that the said provision has no application to Hotel Hindusthan
International. It was held that Hotel Hindusthan International cannot be
regarded as an industrial establishment within the meaning of Rule 2(g)
of the West Bengal Trade Unions Rules, 1998, as it does not satisfy the
requirement of the Explanation to Section 25A of the Industrial Disputes
Act. The concept of industry and an industrial establishment are not
synonymous. If the concept of industry and industrial establishment are
synonymous, then those two expressions would not have been defined
differently in the Act as well as in the rules framed thereunder. The
definitions given to industry as well as industrial establishment in the
Act and the rules thereunder make it clear that those two concepts are
different from each other. Thus, when the application of Chapter IIIA of
the said Act has not been extended to the industry explicitly by
incorporating industry in the said provision, this Court cannot extend
the application of Chapter IIIA to Hotel Hindusthan International which
is not an industrial establishment within the meaning of Rule 2(g) of the
said rules, though the said hotel is an industry within the meaning of
Section 2(aa) of the said Act.
Hotel Hindusthan International ... vs Hotel Hindusthan International & Ors on 9 September, 2008
The recognition is for an industrial establishment within the
meaning of Rule 2(g) of the West Bengal Trade Unions Rules, 1998, and
the bank is not coming within the purview of the Act as it does not
satisfy the requirement of the Explanation to Section 25A of th Industrial
Disputes Act. Moreover, the said policy is to operate on all India basis.
The Hotel Hindusthan (supra) was upheld in 2008 (4) CHN 867 (Hotel
Hindusthan International Karmachari Union V. Hotel Hindusthan
International). The Hon'ble Division Bench held:-
Section 25A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 28 in The Trade Unions Act, 1926 [Entire Act]
Chairman, State Bank Of India And Anr. vs All Orissa State Bank Officers ... on 6 May, 2002
In any
event as has been observed in Chairman, SBI & Anr. Vs. All Orissa
State Bank Officers' Association and others reported in 2002 (5) SCC
669, the procedure to consult the majority union would help in
maintaining industrial peace and smooth function of the establishment.
The Trade Unions Act, 1926
Reserve Bank Of India & Ors vs C.N. Sahasranaman & Ors on 30 April, 1986
Moreover, in service jurisprudence there cannot be any service rule
which would satisfy each and every employee (Reserve Bank of India
Vs. C.N. Sahasranaman & Ors.; AIR 1986 SC 1830).
1