Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.37 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rohtas Industries Staff Union And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 2 May, 1962
In Rohtas Industries' case the prohibition was under the industrial law. The arbitrators in both cases went against the law. Their awards disclosed a patent error.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Champsey Bhara And Company vs The Jivraj Balloo Spinning And C. Co. ... on 6 March, 1923
(39) Now the regret expressed by Williams J. in Hodgkinson v. Fernie (supra) has been repeated by more than one learned judge, and it is certainly not to be desired, as Lord Dunedin said in Champsey Bhara's case (supra), that the exception should be in any way extended. Therefore, to say that if the award does not give reasons the court will set it aside is to make sharp and deep in roads into the law of arbitration. The essence of arbitration is chat it is a voluntary reference of disputes to a domestic jurisdiction.
Rohtas Industries Ltd. And Anr. vs Workmen Of Rohtas Industries Ltd. And ... on 22 August, 1966
(31) A division bench of the Patna High Court in Rohtas Industries v. Their Workmen, has taken a contrary view. They have held that the award cannot be quashed on the ground that the arbitrator has failed to give reasons for his decision. The arbitrator's decision is certainly a quasi-judicial one. But that does not mean that he has to give his reasons for his decision in the award : Dutta J speaking for the court said : THE"desirability for giving the grounds on which a decision is based does not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that such grounds must be given in the quasi-judicial decision of an arbitrator appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act, where there is no specific provision in the law itself to that effect."
Dr. S. B. Dutt vs University Of Delhi on 3 September, 1958
In Dr. Dutt's case (supra) it was argued that an Industrial Tribunal had power in an award made on a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act to direct reinstatement of discharged employees. Therefore, it was submitted that the arbitrator in ordering reinstatement of Dr. Dutt was not wrong in law.