Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Factories Act, 1948
Management Of The Tiruchi-Srirangam ... vs Labour Court, Madurai And Anr. on 25 October, 1960
10. A similar contention was repelled by the Madras High Court in Tiruchi-Srirangam Transport Co., Private Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madurai, in which Ramachandra lyer, J. (as he then was) said that the clear object of Section 33-C of the I. D. Act, is to provide for the adjudication of individual claims not necessarily by persons who are still under the employment of the Management but by discharged persons as well. His Lordship added that tile words, 'any workman', should necessarily include a discharged workman as well and that the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the claim of a discharged workman.
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
Section 33C in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Manicka Mudaliar (M.) vs Labour Court And Anr. on 16 November, 1960
In Manicka Mudaliar v. Labour Court, Madras, (1961) 1 Lab LJ 592 (Mad), Rajamannar, C. J., who spoke for the Bench, said that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the I. D. Act may be made by a person who was a workman during the period in respect of which he was entitled to any benefit.
South India Estate Labour Relations ... vs The State Of Madras And Ors. on 9 October, 1953
21. Mr. Krishnaiah sought support for his contention from the observations in South India Estate Labour Relations Organisation v. State of Madras, . There a question arose whether certain categories of employees were workmen as defined In Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act Venkatarama Aiyar, J., who spoke for the Bench, said at page 50: