Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.27 seconds)Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
M/S. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shri Jai Singh And Others on 20 September, 1961
These three cases were
further considered by this Court in Bharat Sugar Mills
Ltd. v. Shri Jai Singh, [1962] 3 SCR 684, and reference
was also made to the decision of the Labour Appellate
Tribunal in Shri Ram Swarath Sinha v. Belaund Sugar
Co.. (1954) L.A.C. 697. It was pointed out that "the
important effect of commission to hold an enquiry was
merely this: that the tribunal would not have to
consider only whether there was a prima facie case but
would decide for itself on the evidence adduced whether
the charges have really been made out".
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Madhya Pradesh, State Road Transport ... vs Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, ... on 22 July, 1970
(1)
A contrary view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v.
Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh,(3) was also brought to the
notice of the Court.
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co vs Ludh Budh Singh on 11 January, 1972
Viewed from this angle, in the present case there was
neither a pleading in which any such claim for adducing
additional evidence was made, nor any request was made
before the Industrial Tribunal till the proceedings were
adjourned for making the Award and till the Award was made.
The case squarely falls within the ratio of Delhi Cloth &
General Mills Co. case. Therefore, the Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court was clearly in error in granting such a
non-sought opportunity at the stage of the Letters Patent
Appeal.
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
When read
in the context of the propositions called out in Delhi Cloth
& General Mills Co. case and the Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.
Of India (P) Ltd. case, the decision in Cooper Engineering
Ltd. case merely indicates the stage at which an opportunity
ha to be given but it must not be overlooked that the
opportunity has to be asked for.
Cooper Engineering Limited vs Shri P. P. Mundhe on 20 August, 1975
It was not
possible so to do because the decision in the Management of
Ritz Theatre, wherein even though the application for
adducing additional evidence was given before the Tribunal
passed its final order, this Court declined to interfere
saying that such a request was made at a very late stage and
that is the decision of three judges and the decision in
Cooper Engineering Ltd. case is equally a decision of three
judges.