Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
For Approval And Signature vs State Of Gujarat & on 7 July, 2017 cites

Ram Avtar Sharma & Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 11 April, 1985

16. It has been already stated that we had given one more chance to the Government to reconsider the matter ,red the Government after reconsideration has come to the same conclusion that the convoy drivers are not workmen of TELCO thereby adjudicating the dispute itself. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having given our best consideration in the matter, we are of the view that the dispute should be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal and, as the Government has persistently declined to make a reference under section 10(1) of the Act, we think we should direct the Government to make such a reference. In several instances this Court had to direct the Government to make a reference under section 10(1) when the Government had declined to make such a reference and this Court was of the view that such a reference should have been made. See Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nnadu, [1983] 1 LLJ 460; Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana, [1985] 3 SCR 686; M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. The State of M.P. [1985] 2 SCR 1019 and Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, [1984] 2 LLJ396."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 221 - D A Desai - Full Document

Shambu Nath Goyal vs Bank Of Baroda, Jullundur on 2 February, 1978

14. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in the above decisions, there can be no doubt that the Government was not justified in deciding the dispute. Where, as in the instant case, the dispute is 808 whether the person raising the dispute are workmen or not, the same cannot be decided by the Government in exercise of its administrative function under section 10(1) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 150 - D A Desai - Full Document
1