Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)
L.M. Thapar And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 6 August, 1970 cites

The Automobile Products Of India Ltd vs Rukmaji Bala And Others(And Connected ... on 3 February, 1955

As was pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case of the Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. Rukmaji Bala (1955) 7 F.J.R. 716, the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction conferred on the authority named in Section 33-A of the 1947 Act and Section 21 of the 1950 Act is wider than that conferred on the criminal court by Section 31 of the 1947 Act and Section 29 of the 1950 Act. The criminal court under the last two mentioned sections is only concerned with the yea or nay whether there has been a contravention of the respective provisions of the sections mentioned therein but the authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 33A of the 1947 Act and Section 23 of the 1950 Act is to adjudicate upon or decide the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it in the first case as if it were an appeal pending before it in the second case. The authority is, therefore, enjoined to go into the merits of the act complained of under Section 33A of the 1947 Act and Section 23 of the 1950 Act. In this sense the jurisdiction of the authority named in these two sections is certainly wider than that of the criminal court exercising jurisdiction under the penal sections referred to above. In the written complaint the Labour Officer of course reported that the management deliberately retrenched 27ft workers. In other words, the Labour Officer doubted the bona fides in the act of the petitioners in effecting retrenchment of those workmen. An enquiry into the bona fides in such cases wilt be beyond the jurisdiction of the criminal court as ii has no power under the Industrial Disputes Act to look into the validity or otherwise of the retrenchment by the management and specific power for the purpose has been given to the Industrial Tribunal if a reference is made under Section 10 of the Act. If the termination of service was a colourable exercise of the power or as a result of victimisation or unfair labour practice it was for the Industrial Tribunal which would have the jurisdiction to intervene and set aside such termination. Such tribunal can always go behind the order to find out the reasons which led to the order of retrenchment and then consider for itself whether termination was a colourable exercise of power or otherwise and the Industrial Tribunal would only have the jurisdiction to intervene in such cases and set aside such termination. la this view of the matter, therefore, it must be held that prima facie no case of contravention of the provision of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act was made out against the petitioner on account of the retrenchment of 276 workmen and for the purpose of such retrenchment no approval of the Labour Officer before whom the dispute was pending was necessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 99 - Full Document
1   2 Next