Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
All India Women???S Conference vs Sh. Raj Karan & Anr. on 5 April, 2010 cites

Cholan Roadways Limited vs G. Thirugnanasambandam on 17 December, 2004

Reference in this regard may be made to Lalla Ram Vs. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. AIR 1978 SC 1004 and Cholan Roadways Limited Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam AIR 2005 SC 570. There is no rationale nexus for discriminating between disputes emanating from an award / settlement and other disputes and to provide protection of Section 33 to the workmen, WP(C) 15211/2004 & WP(C) 1523/2004 Page 9 of 13 disputes raised by whom do not emanate from an award or a settlement and to deprive the others whose dispute emanate from an award or settlement from the protection of Section 33.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 237 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Dharampal vs National Engg. Inds. Ltd. And Anr. on 22 February, 2001

18. The provisions of Section 33 are thus found applicable to a proceeding under Section 36A of the Act. However, I am of the opinion that the matter will still have to be remanded to the Labour Court. The Labour Court has clearly erred in abruptly short circuiting the procedure merely for the reason of the provision of Section 33(2)(b) having not been obtained. The Labour Court, in a reference under Section 10, even if the permission under Section 33(2)(b) had not been taken, was required to adjudicate the dispute raised by workmen of the validity of the action of petitioner of dismissal of respondents workmen. The Supreme Court in WP(C) 15211/2004 & WP(C) 1523/2004 Page 11 of 13 Dharampal v. National Engg. Inds. Ltd. AIR 2002 SC 510 held that in a proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) only a prima facie view has to be taken and which would ordinarily not been interfered with in a writ proceeding and the appropriate course for the workman is to invoke Section 10 to work out his rights. The Labour court is still required to return a finding as to whether the respondents workmen were guilty of misconduct alleged and if so, whether the punishment meted out to them of dismissal was justified. The effect of non compliance of Section 33 would be but one facet of the decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ballarpur Collieries Co vs The Presiding Officeir, C.G.I.T. ... on 14 March, 1972

In my view the judgment of the Division bench of the Patna High Court with which I have respectfully disagreed herein above, cannot also stand in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ballarpur Collieries Co. (supra). What has been held by the Supreme Court in Ballarpur Collieries Co. qua Section 23(b) of the Act, notwithstanding the difference in language under Section 33 and in Section 23(b), applies equally to Section 33 also. The scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) is only to oversee the dismissal to ensure that no unfair labour practice or victimization has been practiced. If the procedure of fair hearing has been observed and a prima facie case for dismissal is made out the approval has to be granted. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal/Labour Court under Section 33(2)(b) cannot be wider than this.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - I D Dua - Full Document

Lalla Ram vs Management Of D.C.M. Chemical Works ... on 16 February, 1978

Reference in this regard may be made to Lalla Ram Vs. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. AIR 1978 SC 1004 and Cholan Roadways Limited Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam AIR 2005 SC 570. There is no rationale nexus for discriminating between disputes emanating from an award / settlement and other disputes and to provide protection of Section 33 to the workmen, WP(C) 15211/2004 & WP(C) 1523/2004 Page 9 of 13 disputes raised by whom do not emanate from an award or a settlement and to deprive the others whose dispute emanate from an award or settlement from the protection of Section 33.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 304 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next