Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.46 seconds)
Sh. Anil Kumar (Age 37) vs Sh. Abraham Pothen (Director ... on 14 May, 2018 cites

Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 26 November, 1998

14.  Following   was   held   by   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   of Rajasthan   in  M/s.   Eicher   Goodearth   Ltd.   Vs.   The   Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Another 1999 LLR 156:­ "9. The question, therefore, which falls for consideration in the   case   at   hand   is   not   merely   of   a   worker   against   whom misconduct has been alleged on account of his own lapse but the   misconduct   alleged   to   have   been   proved   is   whether   he acted as a kingpin in order to enforce a strike by exerting his will   on others  who were   not  willing  to participate. It  is  no LIR No. 2894/17 Page 21 of 25 doubt true that the right to go on strike of a workman has been treated   as   an   acknowledged   method   of   demonstrating   his protest but the fact remains that the element of willingness on the part of other workers to join the strike is predominant and one workman cannot be said to be having a superior right of pressurising and forcing other workmen to abstain from work as   it   is   an   individual   right   of   each   and   every   workman   to decide for himself whether he wishes to join the strike or not. It is quite obvious that it is in this context that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered over the matter and distinguished the cases of those workmen who were described as 'dumb riven cattle' from those who were the kingpin of the strike.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - G S Misra - Full Document

The Workmen Represented By Bihar ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 8 May, 2003

In, The Workmen Represented by Bihar Engineering Kamgar Union, Refugee Market, Dhanbad Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and another 2003 LLR 922, following was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand:­ "26. Last but not the least in the case of Dunlop Rubber Co. (I) Ltd. V. Their Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 1392 the Supreme Court was considering a similar question in case where order of dismissal was passed  in a domestic inquiry on the ground of  the charge of  misconduct i.e. slowing down of work and engaging or inciting others to arrange unjustified or illegal strike.  Their Lordships firstly held that the charge of slowing down the work is a grave charge and the order of dismissal on the basis of the said charge is proper. Their Lordships further observed   that   against   the   said   order   of   dismissal,   the Industrial   Tribunal   cannot   act   as   any   Court   of   appeal   and cannot   substitute   its   own   judgment   unless   the   action   of   the inquiry officer is liking in bona fide or is manifestly perverse of unfair. "
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Sudhir Chandra Sarkar vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. And Others on 27 March, 1984

Any   strike   resorted   to   in contravention of  that  clause  shall  be deemed illegal.    He further submitted that the workers can go on strike only if their grievances remain unresolved by mutual negotiations provided under the said LIR No. 2894/17 Page 10 of 25 orders.  The process of mutual negotiation was still under way and it was to be signed very shortly but the workers could not restrain themselves   and   went   on   strike   without   giving   any   notice.     He submitted that as per  Sudhir Chandra Sarkar Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1803/1970  decided on 27.03.84 by the Apex Court, the standing orders have the force of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 96 - D A Desai - Full Document

Uco Bank vs Presiding Officer & Another on 30 August, 1999

He   also   relied   upon   (i)  UCO   Bank   Vs.   Presiding   Officer (2000)   1   LLJ  1187,   Delhi,  (ii)  Syndicate   Bank   &   Anr.   and   K. Umesh Nayak and Ors. (1994) II LLJ. (iii) M/s. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. Vs.  The Presiding Officer,  Labour  Court & Another 1999 LLR,  (iv)  The   Workmen   represented   by   Bihar   Engineering Kamgar Union, Refugee Market, Dhanbad, Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and another, 2003 LLR,
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 574 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Syndicate Bank & Anr vs K. Umesh Nayak & Ors on 13 September, 1994

In,  Syndicate Bank and Ors Vs. K. Umesh Nayak & Ors. (1994) II LLJ, following was held by the Apex Court:­ "9.  The strike as a weapon was evolved by the workers as a form of direct action during their long struggle with the LIR No. 2894/17 Page 17 of 25 employers.  It is essentially a weapon of last resort being an abnormal aspect of the employer­employee relationship and involves   withdrawal   of   labour   disrupting   production, services and the running of the enterprise. It is a use by the labour of their economic power to bring the employer to see and meet their view­point over the dispute between them. In addition to the total cessation of work, it takes various forms such as working to rule, go slow, refusal to work over­time when   it   is   compulsory   and   a   part   of   the   contract   of employment,   "irritation   strike"   or   staying   at   work   but deliberately doing everything wrong, "running sore strike", i.e. disobeying the lawful orders, sit­down, stay­in and lie­ down   strike   etc.   etc.   The   cessation   or   stoppage   of   work whether by the employees or by the employer is detrimental to the production and economy and to the well being of the society as a whole. It is for this reason that the industrial legislation while not denying the right of workmen to strike, has tried to regulate it along with the right of the employer to lock­out and has also provided a machinery for peaceful investigation, settlement, arbitration and adjudication of the disputes between them. Where such industrial legislation is not applicable, the contract of employment and the service rules   and   regulations   many   times   provide   for   a   suitable machinery for resolution of the disputes.  When the law or the contract of employment or the service rules provide for a machinery to resolve the dispute, resort to strike or lockout as   a   direct   action   is   prima   facie   unjustified.   This   is particularly   so   when   the   provisions   of   the   law   or   of   the contract or of the service rules in that behalf are breached. For then, the action is also illegal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 71 - P B Sawant - Full Document

The Dunlop Rubber Co vs Workmen on 10 November, 1964

In, The Workmen Represented by Bihar Engineering Kamgar Union, Refugee Market, Dhanbad Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and another 2003 LLR 922, following was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand:­ "26. Last but not the least in the case of Dunlop Rubber Co. (I) Ltd. V. Their Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 1392 the Supreme Court was considering a similar question in case where order of dismissal was passed  in a domestic inquiry on the ground of  the charge of  misconduct i.e. slowing down of work and engaging or inciting others to arrange unjustified or illegal strike.  Their Lordships firstly held that the charge of slowing down the work is a grave charge and the order of dismissal on the basis of the said charge is proper. Their Lordships further observed   that   against   the   said   order   of   dismissal,   the Industrial   Tribunal   cannot   act   as   any   Court   of   appeal   and cannot   substitute   its   own   judgment   unless   the   action   of   the inquiry officer is liking in bona fide or is manifestly perverse of unfair. "
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 63 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1