Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.25 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Section 33C in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Herbertsons Limited vs Workmen Of Herbertsons Limited And Ors on 3 November, 1976
In the above case (Herbetsons), the Court further pointed out that a settlement cannot be judged on the touchstone of the principles applicable in adjudicating disputes by the Tribunal.
Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 16 October, 1981
32. Mr. Patel, learned Advocate submitted that merely because 10% of the workmen are not agreeable the settlement does not seize to be just and fair. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Tata Engg. & Locomotive v. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1981 SC 2163. The Apex Court, in paragraph 6 pointed out as under :-
D. C. Roy vs The Presiding Officer, Madhya Pradesh ... on 23 March, 1976
51. Since after the decision of the Division Bench in the case of G.M.D.C. (supra) there are further settlements between the parties, the parties would be governed by the subsequent settlements, and therefore, it is not possible to accept the contentions raised by Mr. Vakil that H.R.A. and Project Allowance must be given in view of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of G.M.D.C. (supra) to all irrespective of facts that the proceedings initiated earlier were under Sections 33C(2) of the I. D. Act for granting certain benefits under settlements and that there were further settlements for different periods.
Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983
35.2 The Division Bench considered the pleadings in paragraph 8 of the judgment. The concerned workmen staked their claim for project allowance and H.R.A. on the basis of the rules, policies, settlements and conditions of service as applicable to them. The Court pointed out that in the Written Statement there was not even a whisper that the service rules do not apply to the respondent-workmen who were applicants before the labour Court and the main defence put fonvard to defeat the claim of the workman was that they were working as daily-rated workman, and therefore, they were not entitled to any relief from the Court in the proceedings under Sections 33C(2) and that they were not made regular workmen, they were not entitled to project allowance or house rent allowance for the period they were covered by the concerned settlement. Save and except these twin defence, no other defence was at all invoked by the Corporation. The Division Bench pointed out the scope of interference under a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in paragraph 9 of the judgment. At page 422, the Division Bench quoted the following passage from the judgment in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim, AIR 1984 SC 38 :