Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)
South India Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli vs T.D. Pichuthayappan And Anr. on 31 July, 1953 cites

V.M. Syed Mohamed And Co. And Anr. vs The State Of Madras Represented By The ... on 29 August, 1952

6. But it is argued for the appellant that whatever be the object of the legislation, the definition of "establishment" under the Act is vague and indefinite and not based on any statable principle and that in particular, the power conferred on the Government to bring whatever they notified as a "commercial establishment" or "establishment" under Section 2(3) and Section 2(6) within the operation of the Act is arbitrary as no standard is prescribed for guiding or limiting the exercise of that power. But, it must be remembered that regulation of labour is a modern phase of social legislation and in the absence of a word which would precisely convey the concept of employment of labour in business undertakings other than factories, the word 'establishment' has been adopted for expressing that notion. Whatever difficulty there might be in expressing that notion, having regard to ths limitations of language there can be none in comprehending whether a particular business undertaking is of the character contemplated by the Act. As for the power which is conferred on the Government in Sections 2 (3) and 2 (6), it is only to notify such undertakings as are of the character of "establishment". We are not now called upon to decide whether a particular notification issued under Sections 2(3) and 2(6) of the Act is bad for declaring as "establishment" what is not of the character contemplated by the Act. We are concerned in these appeals with banks. They form a distinct and well-defined category and in its application to them, the Act cannot be held to contravene any of the principles of a valid classification. As observed in -- 'Syed Mohamed & Co. v. State of Madras', (H) "there is a strong presumption in favour of the validity of legislative classification and it is for those who challenge it as arbitrary and unconstitutional to establish it beyond all doubt";
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 62 - Full Document

Parry & Co. Ltd vs Commercial Employees' ... on 10 April, 1952

11. But. then the question is whether the order is liable to be set aside in these proceedings. It is strongly contended for the respondents that the matter is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in -- 'Parry & Co. v. Commercial Employees' Association', (I), where in dealing with the powers of this Court to issue writs with reference to an order made under Section 51 of the Act, Mukherjea J. observed as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 71 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1