Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
The Cochin Refineries Employees ... vs The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 23 August, 2016
cites
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Section 2A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Praga Tools Corporation vs Shri C. A. Imanual & Ors on 19 February, 1969
30. In a company incorporated under the Indian Companies
Act, there existed two rival trade unions. Though initially the
company initially entered into agreements involving both the
unions, the last in the series was entered into with one, to the
exclusion of the other. The excluded union filed a writ petition.
When the matter reached the Apex Court, in Praga Tools Corpn.,
v. C. A. Imanual4 it held that the writ obviously was claimed
against the company and not against the conciliation officer
regarding any public or statutory duty imposed on him by the Act.
Sohan Lal vs The Union Of India on 7 March, 1957
31. Praga Tools, first, acknowledges that as per Article 226
every High Court will have power to issue to any person or
4AIR 1969 SC 1306
W.A.No.1860 of 2016 18
authority orders and writs including writs, like habeas corpus,
mandamus, and so on, for enforcing any of the rights conferred by
Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. But a
mandamus lies only to secure the performance of a public or
statutory duty. And the entity that applies must have sufficient legal
interest. So an application for mandamus will not lie for an order of
reinstatement to an office essentially of a private character; nor can
such an application be maintained to secure performance of
obligations owed by a company towards its workmen or to resolve
any private dispute. Praga Tools quotes with approval the dicta of
Sohan Lal v. Union of India5 and Regina v. Industrial court.6
Premier Automobiles Ltd vs Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke Of Bombay & Ors on 26 August, 1975
In the end, T.C.C. Thoziali Union has summarized the
principles: (i) ''recognition dispute" is an industrial dispute; (ii)
recognition is a matter of volition on the employer's part; (iii) a
trade union has neither common-law right nor statutory right which
enables and entitles it to compel an employer to give recognition to
it as the bargaining agent of its members; and (iv) since it has no
such common law right, a "recognition dispute", cannot be said to
be one emanating from, and emerging out of, any right under the
W.A.No.1860 of 2016 17
general common law; and, therefore, (v) principle No.2 stated by
the Supreme Court in the Premier Automobiles case is not attracted
to a "recognition dispute", no matter that a trade union has no such
right under any statute, either.
T.C.C. Thozhilali Union vs T.C.C. Ltd. on 20 January, 1982
In T.C.C. Thoziali Union v. T.C.C. Ltd.3, this Court, per a
learned Single Judge, has percipiently presented the legal principle
that instructs what a trade dispute is: A trade union, in claiming
locus standi to represent its members in the employment of a
company, does so on behalf the workers who are its members. If
31982 KLT 125
W.A.No.1860 of 2016 16
the employer refuses to accept a claim or to recognize the union as
its members' representative and bargaining agent, a difference or
dispute is said to have arisen between the employer and such of its
employees who are members of the union which claims the status
of a bargaining agent. When such difference is "connected with the
employment, non-employment, the terms of employment, or with
the conditions of labour, of any person," it is an industrial or trade
dispute.
1