Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.43 seconds)
The Workmen Of Buckingham And Carnatic ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Two Ors. on 7 April, 1982
cites
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 29 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
It is enough to refer to the following tests as summarised by Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (supra) to find out whether a corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the Government :
Indian Sugar Mills Association Through ... vs Secy. To Government, Uttar Pradesh ... on 14 September, 1950
30. The learned Chief Justice has also referred to the following observations of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in India Sugar Mills Association v. Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh Labour Department :
United India Fire And General Insurance ... vs A.A. Nathan And Anr. on 5 March, 1980
32. The question that came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. A. Nathan, [1980 - I L.L.J. 369], was whether the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., was amenable to the Jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Ismail, C.J., speaking for the Bench held that the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., is not an "authority" within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned Chief Justice then, noticing the fact that the terms of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is wider, proceeded to consider whether the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., would be amenable to the jurisdiction of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Chief Justice observed as follows :
T. Gattaiah And 86 Ors. vs Commissioner Of Labour And Anr. on 2 March, 1981
34. The learned counsel for the petitioners heavily learned on the decision of the Chowdhary, J. of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Gattaih v. Commissioner of Labour, [1981 II L.L.J. 54]. The judgment of the learned Judge cannot be understood in the sence that the learned Judge has held that in all cases a writ would lie against a private individual or an incorporated company On the other hand, the learned Judge has observed in Paragraph 20 that in appropriate cases a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution would issue even against a private person. A perusal of the entire judgment would show that mandamus would issue against a private individual or an incorporated company provided the private individual or the company is enjoined law to perform a duty of a public nature. If the learned Judge has meant that a writ could be issued against a private person or an incorporated company even for the purpose of enforcing a contractual right or any other private right without reference to the question whether the writ that is sough for would lie against that private individual or company under the established principles, then we must confess, with great respect to the learned Judge; that we are unable to subscribe to that view and we see no justification for holding that the "person" referred to in Art. 226 would take in every private individual with respect to every private act or a mission of his.