Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.67 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
M/S. Voltas Ltd vs J. M. Demello & Anr on 21 July, 1971
8. This being the legal position, it would be difficult to hold that the interpretation of the Standing Order was not incidental to compute the amount of wages which were due to the Respondent No. 1. The counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has also referred to (1971-II-LLJ-307) (SC) in the case of M/s. Voltas Limited v. J. M. Damellow and another. In the said case, it is held as follows at p. 314 :
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
Central Inland Water Transport ... vs The Workmen & Anr on 23 April, 1974
Even in the earlier judgment, in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation, (supra) it is also held that it would be permissible for the Labour Court to interpret and to adjudicate on matters which are incidental to the computation of the benefit claimed by the workman.
Section 33C in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak & Anr. on 26 November, 1993
6. The counsel for the petitioner does not deny the legal position that the Standing Orders are statutory in nature and have a binding effect on the bank and the employees. This being so, it would be difficult to agree with the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the interpretation of the Standing Orders was not incidental to the decision of the application under Section 33-C(2). Even a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), would show that it has been held that the Labour Court has the power to interpret an award or a settlement on which the workman's right rests. The position of the Standing Orders cannot be said to be of a lesser status than that of a settlement or an award which may have been arrived at between the employer and employee.
1