Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Parry & Co. Ltd vs P.C. Pal & Ors on 27 November, 1968
21. The above discussion makes it clear that the Management, i.e. Mettur Beardsell had been systematically planning to eliminate some of their workmen and worked on it meticulously. It is not a financial planning of sort so as to take shelter within the legal principles stated by the Supreme Court in M/S. PARRY AND CO. LTD v. P.C. PAL (supra) and on the other hand, the facts and circumstances fall squarely within the legal principles stated by the Supreme Court in ANAKAPALLA CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY v. ITS WORKMEN (supra). Ex.W-22 stares in the face, which is a record to show that the salaries by Mettur Beardsell Limited has been paid to the workmen even on 28.7.1983. Thus, all facts and circumstances conclusively speak of the existence of relationship of the Management and Workmen between the appellant and the contesting workmen.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Anakapalla Co-Operative Agricultural ... vs Workmen on 23 October, 1962
21. The above discussion makes it clear that the Management, i.e. Mettur Beardsell had been systematically planning to eliminate some of their workmen and worked on it meticulously. It is not a financial planning of sort so as to take shelter within the legal principles stated by the Supreme Court in M/S. PARRY AND CO. LTD v. P.C. PAL (supra) and on the other hand, the facts and circumstances fall squarely within the legal principles stated by the Supreme Court in ANAKAPALLA CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY v. ITS WORKMEN (supra). Ex.W-22 stares in the face, which is a record to show that the salaries by Mettur Beardsell Limited has been paid to the workmen even on 28.7.1983. Thus, all facts and circumstances conclusively speak of the existence of relationship of the Management and Workmen between the appellant and the contesting workmen.
Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla vs A.D. Divikar (With Connected Appeal) on 27 November, 1956
8. Section 25-FF was inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in HARIPRASAD v. A.D. DIVELKAR (AIR 1957 S.C. 121). Section 25-FF reads as follows:
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Spencer Group Aerated Water Factory ... vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 19 March, 1996
12. The said proposition of law was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in SPENCER GROUP AERATED WATER FACTORY EMPLOYEES' UNION & ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS AND ORS (97 (I) L.L.J. 362).
Indian Overseas Bank vs I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union & Anr on 11 April, 2000
17. The above-referred judicial precedents of the Supreme Court are authorities to hold that the High Court is not lacking in its power of judicial exercise to interfere with the Awards of the lower Courts/Tribunals, if such decisions are not based upon the material on record and by pointing out such defects by clear reasons. The decisions cited by Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel, in INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. IOB STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS UNION (2000 I L.L.J. 1618) and UNITED LABOUR FEDERATION, CHENNAI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (2002 I L.L.J. 799) are based upon the facts stated therein keeping in view the broad principles of the powers of judicial review. On the touchstone of the above legal principles of the extent of the judicial review available under Article 226 of Constitution of India, we are in complete agreement with the reasons stated by the learned single Judge in order dated 22.7.1991 W.P. No.11956 of 1987 to the effect that the Award of the Industrial Tribunal is perverse.