Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.47 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Mrf Ltd. vs Goa Mrf Employees' Union And Anr. on 12 August, 2003
Reliance was also placed on the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. and Anr. decision of this Court in the case of MRF Ltd. v. Goa MRF Union, Goa 2003 (III) CLR 985. It was further pointed out that even otherwise if it was the case of the workman that there was breach of the protection under Section 33(1)(b) of the Act, the only remedy available to the workman was by filing an application under Section 33A of the said Act and, therefore, the application at Exh.4 was not maintainable and was required to be dismissed even on merits.
Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Pt. Ram Sarup.(And Connected Appeal) on 24 October, 1956
In the case of L.D. Sugar Mills v. Pt. Ram Sarup , a four-Judge Bench after referring to its earlier decisions in the case of Atherton West and Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mill Mazdoor Union and Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. Rukmaji Bala and Ors. observed as under:
Atherton West & Co. Ltd vs Suti Mill Mazdoor Union And Others on 16 March, 1953
In the case of L.D. Sugar Mills v. Pt. Ram Sarup , a four-Judge Bench after referring to its earlier decisions in the case of Atherton West and Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mill Mazdoor Union and Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. Rukmaji Bala and Ors. observed as under:
Air India Limited vs Libio Francisco Colaco And Anr. on 30 June, 2003
5. In the said pending approval application the respondent filed an interlocutory application at Exh.4 praying for interim relief seeking directions against the Company to pay 75% of the wages, subsistence allowance with all other allowances and consequential benefits with all necessary increase till the final disposal of the approval application on a monthly basis and continue to pay the same. This application was presented on or about 2/2/2005 and it was opposed by the Company by its reply filed on or about 4/6/2005. The respondent had claimed in the said interlocutory application that on a demand raised by him, conciliation proceedings were pending and, therefore, the Company was prevented from taking any action against him without permission of the Conciliation Officer as per Section 33(1)(b) of the At and thus, prima facie, the dismissal order was in breach of the said provisions and unless the Company had obtained express permission in writing from the Conciliation Officer, the order of dismissal dated 16/8/2004 could not have been passed. On the other hand, the Company on its part while opposing the said application submitted that the application was misconceived and was not maintainable. It pointed out that the dismissal order dated 16/8/2004 was based on the acts of gross and grave misconduct and the demand raised before the Conciliation Officer had no connection with the charges proved against the workman. It further pointed out that the protection under Section 33(1)(b) or Section 33(2)(b) of the Act would be available only when a reference was pending at the time the charge-sheet was issued and the reference pending before the Court for adjudication or conciliation proceedings instituted after the charge-sheet was issued cannot prevent the employer from proceeding to issue the dismissal order. It was further submitted that after the charge-sheet was issued on 8/11/2003, a departmental enquiry was conducted in keeping with the principles of natural justice and the issue as to whether the enquiry held against the workman was fair or was conducted in keeping with the principles of natural justice was yet to be adjudicated and decided by the Labour Court and, therefore, no interim order could be passed on the application filed by the workman. By placing reliance on the decision of this Court (DB) in the case of Air India Limited v. Libio Fancisco Colaco and Anr. , it was submitted that unless the domestic enquiry was set aside on the ground of being defective or there was only facade of enquiry or there was no enquiry at all and a de novo enquiry is ordered, the management could not be asked to pay subsistence allowance. It was further submitted that the stage of decision on the issue as to whether the disciplinary proceedings held against the opponent are legal, fair and proper, could not be by-passed by entertaining the application for interim relief.
Blue Star Employees Union vs Ex. Off. Principal Secy To Government ... on 26 September, 2000
In the case of Blue Star Employees' Union v. Ex. Off. Principal Secy. to Government and Anr. the Apex Court analysed the scheme of Section 33 and Section 33A of the Act as under
B.P.L. Ltd. And Ors vs R. Sudhakar And Ors on 6 May, 2004
In the case of M/s. B.P.L. and Ors. v. R. Sudhakar and Ors. 2004 AIR SCW 3507 the Supreme Court stated in para 9 as under:
The Automobile Products Of India Ltd vs Rukmaji Bala And Others(And Connected ... on 3 February, 1955
In the case of L.D. Sugar Mills v. Pt. Ram Sarup , a four-Judge Bench after referring to its earlier decisions in the case of Atherton West and Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mill Mazdoor Union and Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. Rukmaji Bala and Ors. observed as under:
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002
Reliance was also placed on the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. and Anr. decision of this Court in the case of MRF Ltd. v. Goa MRF Union, Goa 2003 (III) CLR 985. It was further pointed out that even otherwise if it was the case of the workman that there was breach of the protection under Section 33(1)(b) of the Act, the only remedy available to the workman was by filing an application under Section 33A of the said Act and, therefore, the application at Exh.4 was not maintainable and was required to be dismissed even on merits.
1