Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.38 seconds)
The Management Of L And T Komatsu Limited ... vs Larsen And Toubro Employees ... on 29 October, 2007 cites

Workmen Of M/S. Delhi Cloth And General ... vs Management Of M/S. Delhi Cloth And ... on 17 October, 1969

30. The Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. reported in 1972(1)LLJ 99, after referring to Rule 58 of the Industrial Dispute (Central Rules 1957 made under Section 38 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, held that the plain reading of the Rule and the Form, clearly suggests its mandatory character. The question of a valid and binding settlement is governed by statute and the rules made thereunder. In the light of these provisions and in particular Section 18(1) vests with the management and the Union unfettered freedom to settle the dispute as they please and clothes it with a binding effect on workmen or even on all member workmen of the union. The settlement has to be to compliance with the statutory provisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 79 - I D Dua - Full Document

Brooke Bond India Ltd vs The Workmen on 22 July, 1981

In the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd v. The Workmen , the Supreme Court held that normally in order that a settlement between the employer and the workmen may be binding on them, it has to be arrived at by agreement between the employer and the workmen. Page 2531 Where the workmen are represented by a recognised Union, the settlement may be arrived at between the employer and the Union. If there is a recognised Union of the workmen and the Constitution of the Union provides that any of its office bearers can enter into a settlement with the management on behalf of the Union and its members, a settlement may be arrived at between the employer and such office-bearer or bearers. A reading of Section 65(2)(b) of the Rules clearly shows that it presupposes the existence of a settlement already arrived at between the employer and the workmen and it only prescribes the form in which the Memorandum of settlement should be and by whom it should be signed. It does not deal with the entering into or arriving at a settlement. Therefore, where a settlement is alleged to have been arrived at between an employer and one or more office-bearers of the Union and the authority of the office-bearers who signed the memorandum of settlement to enter into settlement is challenged or disputed the said authority or authorisation of the office bearers who signed the memorandum of settlement has to be established as a fact, and it is not enough if the employer merely points out and relies upon the fact that the Memorandum of settlement was signed by one or more of the office-bearers of the Union.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 19 - A C Gupta - Full Document

Workmen Of M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Ors vs Management Of M/S Hindusian Lever Ltd on 5 January, 1984

34. The Supreme Court in the case of the Workmen, Hindustan Lever Ltd v. The Management of Hindustan Lever Ltd. reported in 1984 Lab.I.C. 388, has held that the employer which swore by the agreement and repeatedly succeeded in getting thrown out certain reference at the threshold on account of the agreement, now wants to contend that there was no concluded agreement and ignoring the whole history, the Tribunal falls into an error in accepting this contention. The weight of evidence not only not at all referred to by the Tribunal but frankly wholly ignored clearly and unmistakably lead to one and one conclusion alone that according to the employer there was the concluded agreement between the parties. It is a solemn agreement, the agreement of which effective and wholesome advantage has been taken by the employer and when it now does not suit it, it in breach of the solemn agreement wants to turn round and not only repudiate it but disown it as having never been entered into. No court of justice can ever permit such a thing to be done. It was held that the employer was estopped from challenging the agreement in view of his conduct throughout.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 113 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next