Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.65 seconds)
Phoenix Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1977 cites

State Of Bombay vs K. P. Krishnan And Others. (And ... on 18 April, 1960

8. It is obvious that grant or rejection of such application affects the rights either of the employer or the reaction. Article 226 of the Constitution enables every citizen whether employer or workmen to approach this Court and insist on the judicial review of any such decision. It is well settled that when at the instance of any citizen judiciary of any such decision is resorted to, this Court cannot be in appeal over the judgment of the appropriate Government. It, however, is under a Constitutional obligation to examine whether the decision is arrived at by the relevant and germane consideration or not and in the event of it being found that no relevant but extraneous consideration weighted with the appropriate Government this Court has a Constitutional duty to strike down the same as being bad in law. It will be enough to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in this behalf in the case of State of Bombay v. K.P.Krishnan, . (Para 17)
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 181 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Jalan Trading Co. (Private Ltd.) vs Mill Mazdoor Union(With Connected ... on 5 August, 1966

The Legislature background of the Bonus Act and the concept of the bonus is discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in the case of the bonus is discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in the case of Jalan Trading Co. (supra). The Supreme Court was called upon to consider the validity, among others, of section 19 of the Act on the ground of it being violative of Article 19 and the Article 31 of the Constitution. Challenge to its validity on the ground of being violative of Article 19 was not required to be decided. However, because of the then Emergency and the notification under Article 358 of the Constitution, section 10, as it then stood, contemplated payment of minimum bonus at the rates of 4 per cent of the wages of employees without regard to whether there were profit or leases during the said year maximum bonus being permissible under section 11 was 20 per cent of such salary, payable from the allocable surplus as determined under section 2(4) read with section 2(6) of said Act, section 10 was amended twice. At one time compulsory bonus was raised from 4 per cent to 8.33 per cent. However, by an Act, No. 23 of 1976 preceded by an Ordinance dated 25th September, 1975, the liability, to pay the compulsory minimum bonus was eliminated and payment of bonus was made dependent on the company making profits and leaving allocable surplus as computed under the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2-A) now introduced in section 10 of the Act restores the position, as it existed before the Amendment Act No. 23 of 1976, and the preceding Ordinance. The Act requires the employer to pay minimum bonus at the rate of 8.33 per cent as indicated earlier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 90 - Cited by 140 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next