Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
E.J. John, Sole Proprietor, St. George ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey And Anr. on 18 February, 1963 cites

Kuriakose Sabu vs Shri. Thomas Sebastian

10-11. After discussing the evidence His Lordship proceeded:) I am not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect is in any manner vitiated by the approach made by the Tribunal or that the said finding can be said to be not one arrived at on the evidence adduced in the case. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that V. Thomas was in the employ of the petitioner-management at the material time, has to be accepted. And from that, it follows, that there were two staff members working under the petitioner-management, viz., V. C. Kuriakose and V. Thomas.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - K V Chandran - Full Document

The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P on 20 March, 1957

17. The Sup/erne Court then considers the alternative ground, relied upon by the Union, viz., that Venkateswaran and Tiwari, the other two employees, who were trie two other working journalists, had supported the cause of saliva-theeswaran. So far as that is concerned, it is seen that both Venkateswaran and Tiwari had filed affidavits before the Industrial Tribunal, stating that the dispute between Salivatheeswaran and the- management of the ."Hindu", fiombay, was purely a personal affair, and that they nad flot at any time, supported the claim of Salivatheeswaran in any manner. No doubt, in that case the Union appears to have relied upon a resolution passed at a meeting of the Bombay Union of Journalists. But it is not necessary to go into that aspect. Ultimately, the Supreme Court comes to the conclusion that neither Venkateswaran nor Tiwari had given support to the cause of Salivatheeswaran. The Supreme "Court ultimately says that if Venkateswarn or Tiwari Had, prior to the date of the reference, supported the cause ot Salivatheeswaran, the reference could not have been in-'Validated. The learned Judges also say that in fact no support to the cause of Salivatheeswaran was given either % Venkateswaran or Tiwari, and therefore, the dispute continued to remain an individual dispute, and was never converted into an industrial dispute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 106 - J L Kapur - Full Document

M/S. New India Motors (P) Ltd.New Delhi vs K. T. Morris on 22 March, 1960

It will be seen that in that case, the learned Judges were considering the application for approval under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the particular expression occurring viz. "a workman concerned in the dispute" in Section 33(1) (a). And it Is in connection with such a dispute that the Supreme Court made the observations quoted above. According to Mr. V.K.K. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, those observations will clearly establish that notwitnstanding the fact that the two workmen joined in raising the dispute, it will not convert the dispute into an industrial dispute, and It must be treated only as an individual dispute. I have carefully gone through the observations ot their Lordships of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. V. K K. Menon and extracted above. I do not think those observations give any such support to the learned counsel for the petitioner. As I mentioned earlier, their Lordships were really considering the expression "a workman concerned in the dispute", occurring in Section 33(1) (a), and It is in connection with that, that the observations extracted above have been made by Their Lordships. It cannot be considered that the learned Judges of the Supreme Court are making a departure from the views expressed in the previous decisions of the Supreme Court itself. Therefore, the observations extracted above will not assist the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 57 - K C Gupta - Full Document

The Bombay Union Of Journalists And ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961

15. The Supreme Court again had to consider in Bombay Union of Journalists v. "Hindu", Bombay, 1961-2 Lab LJ 436: (AIR 1963 SC 318), as to whether the dispute in that case was an individual dispute or an industrial dispute. It related' to one of the working journalists employed under the "Hindu" at Bombay. The Supreme Court takes note of the fact that the "Hindu", having an office ai Bombay at the material time, had, besides the aggrieved party, only nine employees, viz., seven working on the administrative side and two journalists -- Venkateswaran and Tiwari, and the aggrieved party in that case viz., Saliyathees-waran, was working as a Journalist. Therefore, it will be seen that at the material time, in the staff of the "Hindu" at Bombay, there were ten employees, seven of whom were serving in the administrative department and three were working as journalists. The Supreme Court also takes note of the fact that Salivatheeswaran and Venkateswaran i.e., two of the working journalists, were members of the Bombay Union of Journalists, and the third, viz., Tiwari, was not a member of any Union. The Supreme Court also adverts, to the circumstance that the Bombay Union of Journalists, which sponsored the cause of the worker, is a Trade Union, the membership of which is open to all persons, who depend for their livelihood upon the practice of the protession of journalism, including press photographers, artists, etc. ft is also seen that the said Union is admittedly not a union of employees of the "Hindu" Bombay, but is a Union of all persons who depend for their livelihood upon journalism in Bombay. The case of Salivatheeswaran, whose services--were dispensed with by the management, was ultimately taken up by the Bombay Union of journalists, of which the said employee was a member. The "Hindu" Bombay challenged the competence of the State Government to refer the dispute, on various grounds, and one of the grounds was. that there was no dispute between the working journalists of the "Hindu", Bombay on the one hand, and the management on ths other, and that the dispute raised by Salivatheeswaran was merely an individual dispute, which was not sip-ported by an appreciable number of employees of the "Hindu", Bombay. The Industrial Tribunal accepted this contention, and ultimately held that the Government ot Bombay had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 331 - J C Shah - Full Document

Employers Of Express Newspapers ... vs Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh, ... on 7 February, 1962

21. One other decision has been relied upon by Mr, V.K.K. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, viz., the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by Chandra Reddi, C. J., and Kumarayya, I., reported in Employers of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, 1962-2 Lab LJ 200: (AIR Andh Pra 223). It will be seen that in that case, the Express Newspapers (Private] Ltd., Madras, had, at the relevant period, a branch at Hyderabad and had on its staff five employees, namely a Branch Manager, two working journalists (who were respondents 2 and 3 before the High Court), one teleprinter operator, and one attender. The two working journalists, viz., respondents 2 and 3, appear to have been dismissed by the management from service on 28th June 1959 for misconduct and gross negligence of duties. Though there was a Union of the employees of the Express Newspapers Ltd., at Madras, there was no such union of the worKmen of the Express Newspapers Ltd., at Hyderabad. In particular, it is also seen from the judgment of the High Court, that these two employees, viz,, respondents 2 and 3, were not members of the Madras Union, but that, on the other hard, they were members of the Andhra Pradesh Union of workin journalists, which had its registered office at Hyderabad. It is seen that at the instance of respondents 2 and 3 the Andhra Pradesh Union of working Journalists took up the cause of these workmen regarding the orders of dismissal passed by the management. When the dispute was referred for adjudication, a contention was raised by the management that the dispute is not an industrial dispute, but only an individual dispute. The Labour Court overruled the objection of the management, inasmuch as the cause of the two working journalists was espoused by the Andhra Pradesh Union of working Journalists, of which they were members, and which was a trade union. Another ground on which the Labour Court overruled the objection of the management, was that the establishment of the Express Newspapers Ltd., at Hyderabad, had only two working journalists and both ot them were concerned in the dispute, and therefore, so far as the Hyderabad branch of the company was concerned, it must be held that the dispute raised by both of them, is not an individual dispute, but an industrial dispute.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Visalakshi Mills Ltd. vs Labour Court And Anr. on 25 October, 1961

20. Mr. V. K, K. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, relied upon the decision of Veeraswami, J., of the Madras High Court reported in Visalakshi Mills v. Labour Court Madurai, (1962)-2 Lab LJ 93 (Mad). Here, again, this decision, in my view, will not give any assistance to the learned counsel, because the learned Judge, on the particular facts of the case, has come to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the individual dispute has been converted into an industrial dispute, by the body of workmen espousing the cause of the workmen. Therefore this decision also will not assist the learned counsel.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1