Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Sarva Shramik Sangh vs V.V.F. Limited And Anr. on 25 July, 2001
Thereafter, reliance is placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sarva Shramik Sangh v. V.V.F. Ltd., 2002 (1) CLR-797.
Bhandara District Central ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Another Etc. on 10 September, 1992
Central Co-operative Bank v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Mah.L.J. 593. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tata Consulting Engineers And Association.
Tata Consulting Engineers And ... vs Tata Consulting Engineers And Anr. on 17 January, 2002
Staff Union v. Tata Consulting Engineers, 2002 CLR 701, in particular paragraph 8 thereof.
P. Virudhachalam & Ors vs The Management Of Lotus Mills & Anr on 9 December, 1997
The principle of industrial democracy is the bedrock of the Act as pointed out in the case of P. Virudhachalam and Ors. v. Management of Lotus Mills and Anr., (1998) 1 LLJ 389 (SC). In all these negotiations based on collective bargaining individual workmen necessarily recedes to the background. Settlement will encompass all the disputes existing at the time of settlement except those specifically let out."
Tata Chemicals Ltd vs Its Workmen on 23 March, 1978
In the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1978 SC 828 the Supreme Court has observed as under :
Ramnagar Cane And Sugar Co. Ltd vs Jatin Chakravorty And Others on 5 May, 1960
13. A bare perusal of the above quoted section would show that whereas a Settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and the workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding is binding only on the parties to the agreement, a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under the Act is binding not only on the parties to the industrial dispute but also on the other persons specified in Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act. We are fortified in this conclusion by a decision of this Court in Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Chakravorty , (1960) 3 SCR 968 : (AIR 1960 SC 1012) where it was held as follows (at p. 1015 of AIR):
Jhagrakhan Collieries (P) Ltd vs Shri G. C. Agarwal, Presiding Officer, ... on 28 November, 1974
14. Similar view seems to have been held by another Division Bench of this Court in The Jhagrakhan Collieries (P) Ltd. v. G. C. Agrawal, (1975) 3 SCC 613 : (AIR 1975 SC171).
Workmen Of M/S Dharampal ... vs M/S. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) on 16 March, 1965
16. As the first two questions are inseparably linked up, we propose to deal with them together. Although prima facie there seems to be considerable force in the Sangh's stand that if paras 2.3 3.1 and 3.3 of the aforesaid agreement of December 14, 1973 arrived at between the employees union and the appellant Company related only to the special pay and did not cover the Sangh's demand for variable Dearness Allowance linked to the Ahmedabad cost of living index, we do not consider it necessary to go into this question, as the said agreement not having been arrived at during the course of conciliation proceeding, it could not, according to Section 18(1) of the Act bind any one other than the parties thereto. A fortiori, the fact that the employees union which had been duly recognised under the Code of Discipline arrived at the aforesaid agreement with the appellant Company could not operate as a legal impediment in the way of the Sangth (which was not a party to the agreement) to raise a demand or dispute with regard to the Variable Dearness Allowance linked to Ahmedabad cost of living index or affect the validity of the reference by the Government or the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to go into the dispute. The conclusion that minority union can validly raise an industrial dispute gains support from Section 2(k) of the Act which does not restrict the ambit of the definition of "industrial dispute" to a dispute between an employer and recognised majority union but takes within its wide sweep may dispute or difference between employer and workmen including a minority union of workmen which is connected with employment or terms of employment or conditions of labour of workmen as well as the observations made by this Court in Workmen of Dharampal Premchand v. Dharampal Premchand, (1965) 3 SCR 394 : (AIR 1966 SC 182).