Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Section 33C in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Ramakrishna Ramnath vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 27 February, 1970
Upon such a case being before the Labour Court, that court
had to and was competent to decide the question whether
there was a ceiling in the existing scheme, and if% so,
whether it was deleted by the, Tribunal, in other words,
whether the demand was for doing away with the existing
scheme and substituting it by a fresh scheme which had no
ceiling. For that purpose, the Labour Court had necessarily
to examine demand No. 9, the Reference, the pleadings of the
parties, and lastly the Meher Award, and incidental to such
an inquiry it had to examine the question whether there was
a ceiling in the scheme existing at the time of that demand
and reference. (See in this connection Ramakrishna Ramanath
v. The Presiding Officer. Labour Court,
877
Nagpur(1) In doing so, the Labour Court had to examine the
various stages the dearness allowance scheme had from time
to time gone through.
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
If from all this evidence before it the Labour Court came to
the conclusion that a ceiling existed in the scheme of
dearness allowance prevailing in the company at all the
various stages and that deletion of such a ceiling was not
the subject-matter of either demand No. 9 or of the
reference before the Meher Tribunal, and that its award was
confined to the revision only of the existing scheme in the
three matters earlier referred to, it is not possible to say
that the decision of the Labour Court suffered from an error
apparent on the face of its decision in respect of which a
certiorari can justifiably be issued under Art. 226. The
confines of jurisdiction under Art. 226 have been settled by
a series of decisions of this Court, from among which we
need mention only the case of Syed Yakoob v. K. S.
Radhakrishnan(1). There was no question of any estoppel
also against the company against its raising the question of
the ceiling in view of the-finding by the Labour Court that
the question of the ceiling was not the subject-matter of
the reference before the Meher Tribunal. Such a conclusion
of the Labour Court could not be interfered with. by the
High Court on any one of the well-known grounds on which
only such interference is permissible.
Section 9A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Central Bank Of India Ltd vs P.S. Rajagopalan Etc on 19 April, 1963
As
held in The Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan(2), a claim
under Sec. 33C (2) postulates that the determination of the
question about computing in terms of money may in some cases
have to be preceded by an inquiry into the existence of the
right. Such an inquiry is incidental to the main
determination assigned to the Labour Court by that sub-
section. While inquiring into the question as to the
existence of such a right, and construing the award, the
Labour Court can look into the demand by the workmen in
order to ascertain whether the award under which the right
is claimed was, or was not beyond the scope of the demand;
in other words, whether the award was within jurisdiction.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Gopal Bhiva & Ors on 9 May, 1963
(cf. also Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal-Bhiva(3).) This
position was conceded by Mr. Tarkunde.
1