Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1996
Goodyear India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana & Anr. Etc. Etc on 19 October, 1989
38- Evidently thus, the Parliament had no intention to curtail the power of Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, as the ease may be, which it had prior to insertion of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, in my opinion, in the instant case, the Parliament by inserting Section 11-A of the Act, has remedied the then existing unsatisfactory state of affairs-see 1975 (1) All E.R. page 810 at 818, which has been referred to by the Supreme Court in Goodyear India Ltd v. State of Haryana reported in 1989(4) J.T. 229 (supra). Section 11-A of the Act has, thus, to be construed in this back drop. In this view of the matter, the proviso which seeks to restrict the power conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, in terms of Section 11-A of the Act must be read in the context of the said provision only and the restrictions imposed by the provision to Section 11-A cannot be extended to any other power of the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be. Section 11-A read with its proviso, if thus construed, would not only be in consonance with the intent and object of the Act but also would be in consonance with the principles of interpretation of statutes.
Rohtas Industries Ltd. And Anr. vs Workmen Of Rohtas Industries Ltd. And ... on 22 August, 1966
28. Dr. Pal, in this connection, has placed strong reliance upon Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. The Workmen and Ors. reported in 1978 Lab I.C.949, Cawnpur Sugar Works v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1984 P.L.J.R. page 813, Divisional Manager (Collieries) of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. Assistant Engineer 1988 PL.J.R.(NOC) page 12.
Bharat Iron Works vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors on 10 October, 1975
Reference in this connection may be made to Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Salubhai Patel and others reported in 1976 Supreme Court Cases page 98.
S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985
It is true, that a proviso may have three separate functions and four different purposes as has been held by the Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.Pattabiraman, reported in (A.I.R.) 1985 S.C. page 582, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-
Staff. Supdt. Of State Bank Of Patiala vs The Presiding Officer, Central Govt. ... on 14 August, 1984
In State Bank of Patiala v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Ors. reported in 1986(1) L.L.Notes page 374, a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court held in the facts of the case that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in allowing both the management as also the workmen to lead independent evidence.
Kanpur Sugar Works Ltd vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 March, 1970
The question as to whether the parties can lead further evidence in support of their respective cases and whether the Tribunal can permit them to do so can only arise after the Tribunal gives its finding on the merits of the case after confining its consideration to the evidence in the domestic enquiry.'
(Underlining is mine for emphasize)
In Cawnpur Sugar Works v. State of Bihar and others reported in 1984 P.L.J.R. page 813 at page 816, another Division Bench of this Court held as follows :-