Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.82 seconds)West Bengal Shops and Establishments Rules, 1964
Section 18 in West Bengal Shops and Establishments Rules, 1964 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 17 July, 1990
10. Ina the Bombay decision cited by Mr. Sengupta, it was contended on behalf of the union that Section 18(3)(d) covers only such other workmen who are either members of no union or whose union displays indifference either by not responding to the notice of the conciliation officer or otherwise and cannot cover the workmen whose union displays active interest and was opposed to the settlement or terms thereof. It was also urged in that case that it would be a misnomer to call it settlement when negotiating union representing a section of the workmen opposes it and insist for better terms.
Section 12 in West Bengal Shops and Establishments Rules, 1964 [Entire Act]
Bengal Iron Corporation And Anr vs Commercial Tax Officer And Ors on 27 April, 1993
15. Mr. Rathin Bhaduri, learned Counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner, cited a series of decisions reported in (a) Bengal Iron Corporation and Another v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. 1994 Supp.
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors on 21 April, 1989
(1) SCC 310, (b) Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandajiwami Suvarna Jayanti Matotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V.R. Rudani, and Ors. (1989-II-LLJ-324) (SC), (c) Workmen v. I. I. T. I. Cycles of India Ltd. and Ors. (1995-II-LLJ-688)(SC) (d) Rope Textiles Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 199, (e) Election Commission of India v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 643, (f) LIC of India and Anr. v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors. (g) Jogendra Lal Saha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 654, (h) Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. , (i) Hindustan Lever Limited v. B.N. Dongre and Ors. and (i) State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1991 Supp (i) SCC 240, in support of his contention that a writ of mandamus can be issued in the instant case as prayed for by the petitioner. I have perused all the decisions and I am afraid that none of them has any bearing on the point at issue. It is really not understood how these decisions could be of any help to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above.
Hope Textiles Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 October, 1993
(1) SCC 310, (b) Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandajiwami Suvarna Jayanti Matotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V.R. Rudani, and Ors. (1989-II-LLJ-324) (SC), (c) Workmen v. I. I. T. I. Cycles of India Ltd. and Ors. (1995-II-LLJ-688)(SC) (d) Rope Textiles Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 199, (e) Election Commission of India v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 643, (f) LIC of India and Anr. v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors. (g) Jogendra Lal Saha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 654, (h) Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. , (i) Hindustan Lever Limited v. B.N. Dongre and Ors. and (i) State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1991 Supp (i) SCC 240, in support of his contention that a writ of mandamus can be issued in the instant case as prayed for by the petitioner. I have perused all the decisions and I am afraid that none of them has any bearing on the point at issue. It is really not understood how these decisions could be of any help to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above.
L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Consumer Education & Research Centre & ... on 10 May, 1995
(1) SCC 310, (b) Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandajiwami Suvarna Jayanti Matotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V.R. Rudani, and Ors. (1989-II-LLJ-324) (SC), (c) Workmen v. I. I. T. I. Cycles of India Ltd. and Ors. (1995-II-LLJ-688)(SC) (d) Rope Textiles Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 199, (e) Election Commission of India v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 643, (f) LIC of India and Anr. v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors. (g) Jogendra Lal Saha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 654, (h) Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. , (i) Hindustan Lever Limited v. B.N. Dongre and Ors. and (i) State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1991 Supp (i) SCC 240, in support of his contention that a writ of mandamus can be issued in the instant case as prayed for by the petitioner. I have perused all the decisions and I am afraid that none of them has any bearing on the point at issue. It is really not understood how these decisions could be of any help to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above.