Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
We have already expressed our view regarding the interpretation of Section 11A. We have held that the previous law, according to the decisions of this Court, in cases where a proper domestic enquiry had been held, was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of misconduct except under certain circumstances, The position further was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment imposed by an employer both in cases where the misconduct is established in a proper domestic enquiry as also in cases where the Tribunal finds such misconduct proved on the basis of evidence adduced before it. These limitations on the powers of the Tribunals were recognized by this Court mainly on the basis that the power to take disciplinary action and impose punishment was part of the managerial functions. That means that the law, as laid down by this Court over a period of years, had recognised certain managerial rights in an employer. We have pointed out that this position has now been changed by Section 11A. The section has the effect of altering the law by abridging the rights of the employer inasmuch it gives power to the Tribunal for the first time to differ both on a finding of misconduct arrived at by an employer as well as the punishment imposed by him.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
State Of Bombay vs K. P. Krishnan And Others. (And ... on 18 April, 1960
Section 12(5), therefore, imposes a duty on the Government to record and communicate the reasons where the Government decides not to refer a dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. It is now settled that the order of the State Government under Section 12(5) referring or refusing to refer a dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication is an administrative order. It is also equally settled that Courts have no power in exercise of their power of judicial review to sit in appeal over the order of the Government passed under Section 12(5) of the Act. Nor is it possible for Courts to question the reasons given by the Government for refusing a reference under Section 12(5) of the Act if the reasons are germane and relevant to the question of reference. The scope of Section 12(5) of the Act has been considered in State of Bombay v. Krishnan 1960 II L.L.J. 592 at 602, where Gajendragadkar, J., as he then was observed as follows:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. (1978) I S.C.C. 405, Krishna Iyer, J., observed as follows:
Prem Kakar vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 5 April, 1976
The other decision in Prent Kakar v. Slate of Haryana relied upon by Mr. Divecha clearly reiterates this settled legal position. There the Government had prima facie found that the concerned workman was not a workman within the definition of the relevant section and, therefore, it was held that that order was not vitiated. That decision could not be pressed in aid in the present case where the Government has ignored the most relevant facts as to the entire change in law enlarging the powers of the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of this type of disputes under Section 11A and the fact that even an Industrial Tribunal had in this very matter passed a conditional order keeping open this right of the workman. Besides, in any event, after such an exhaustive challenge of the order of the management on various grounds of the inquiry being not proper and the order being completely vitiated as contended by the union, it could never be stated that the union had not given any proper ground for seeking this reference. Whoever has passed this order on behalf of the Government has completely ignored Section 11A from the statute book and, therefore, such a totally groundless order is no order in the eye of law and must be set aside even in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In this view the learned Judges set aside the order.
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
12. This contention of the Government Pleader has no merit. It has been held by the Supreme Court and other Courts that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be tested by reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavits or otherwise. What was invalid in the beginning cannot become validated by additional grounds later brought out. In Comm. of Police v. Gordhandas Bose, J. speaking for the Bench stated thus:
Woollen Mill Kamdar Sangh, Jamnagar vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 29 April, 1977
9. The validity of an order refusing to refer a dispute for adjudication was considered by a Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Kamdar Sangh v. State of Gujarat 1977 II L.L.J. 353. The petitioner-union in the writ proceedings in the High Court had sponsored the dispute relating to the discharge of a workman and the State Government had refused to make a reference. Earlier, the management, had sought approval of the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the discharge of the workman and it was granted subject to the condition that the workman was free to seek a reference for adjudication. The Acting Chief Justice speaking for the Bench observed as follows:
Workmen Of J. And P. Coats (India) Pvt. ... vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 13 June, 1977
In a Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Workmen, J. & P. Coats v. State of Kerala 1977 II L.L.J. 534. Balakrishna Erady, J., spoke thus for the Court:
1