Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)
Workmen Of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs The Management Of Dimakuchitea Estate on 4 February, 1958 cites

Narendra Kumar Sen And Ors. vs All India Industrial Disputes (Labour ... on 24 September, 1952

I come now to the last of the reasons advanced for restricting the natural meaning of the words " any person ". It is said that the word dispute in the definition shows that the person raising it must have an interest in it and therefore since the dispute must concern the employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour of a person that person must be a workman. I confess I do not follow the reasoning. It is said that this is the view expressed by a Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Chagla C. J. and Shah J. in Narendra Kumar Sen v. The All India Industrial Disputes (Labour Appellate) Tribunal (1). I have some difficulty in seeing that this is the view expressed in that case. What happened there was that certain workmen raised a dispute against their employer which included a demand for fixing scales of pay and for bonus not only for themselves but also for the foremen and divisional heads under the same employers who were not work- men and this dispute had been referred by the Government for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to adjudicate the dispute in so far as it concerned the pay and bonus of persons who were not workmen as, according to it, to this extent it was not an industrial dispute. The workmen then applied to the High Court for a writ directing the Tribunal to decide the dispute relating to the claims made for the pay and bonus of the persons who were not workmen. The High Court held that the dispute was not an industrial dispute and refused the writ. Chagla C. J. expressed himself in these words (p. 130):
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next