Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.38 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Burmah Shell (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs D. J. Bahadur & Ors on 10 November, 1980
Rule 3 operating retrospectively cannot nullify the
effect of the subsisting writ issued in D.J. Bahadur's case
(supra) which directed the Life Insurance Corporation to
give effect to the terms of the 1974 settlement relating to
bonus until superseded by a fresh settlement. industrial
award or relevant legislation. The impugned Act of 1981 and
the rules were relevant legislation.
Comorin Match Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 April, 1996
Since these two decision have been explained at length
in the cases of P. Kannadasan as well as Comorin Match
Industries (P). Ltd. (supra) we need not reiterate the same
position. In any case, these two decisions have no bearing
on the present case when there is no subsisting order of the
Court which is sought to be overturned by the impugned 1988
Act or 1989 Scheme.
P.Kannadasan Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Etc. Etc on 26 July, 1996
The second case is P. Kannadasan and Ors. v. State of
T.N. & Ors. (1996 [5] SCC 670). Referring to the doctrine of
separation of powers this Court said that where an Act made
by State legislature is invalidated by the courts on the
ground that the State legislature was not competent to enact
it, the State legislature cannot enact a law declaring that
the judgment of the court shall not operate; it cannot
overrule or annul the decision of the court. But this does
not mean that the legislature which is competent to enact
that law cannot enact that law. Similarly, it is open to a
legislature to alter the basis of the judgment while
adhering to the constitutional limitation. In such a case
the decision of the Court become ineffective. The new law
cannot be challenged on the ground that it seeks to
circumvent the decision of the Court. The Court observed
that this is what is meant by "checks and balances" inherent
in a system of Government incorporating the concept of
separation of powers.
A.V. Nachane & Another vs Union Of India & Another on 28 December, 1981
The Court also said that Nachane's case (supra)
was a sequence to the decision in Madan Mohan Pathak's case
(supra) and the principles laid down in Shri Prithvi Cotton
Mills' case (supra) had not been overruled or doubted by the
majority view in Madan Mohan Pathak's case (supra).