Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
13. An attempt was made by the Corporation to contend that the recruitment of these workmen were not on the basis of any recruitment rules and therefore the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 will squarely apply.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
i)Range Forest Officer v. S.T.Hadimani reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25.
The Manager, Reserve Bank Of India vs S. Mani And Ors. on 25 June, 2002
ii) Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S.Mani and others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 100.
Surendranagar District Panchayat And ... vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005
iii) Surendranagar District Panchayat and another v. Jethabhal Pitamberbhai reported in 2006 (1) L.L.N. 104
Tata Chemicals Ltd vs Its Workmen on 23 March, 1978
9. The petitioner Corporation in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition raised several contentions. Though such a vague averment regarding the espousal of the dispute by workmen was made in the counter statement before the Tribunal, a perusal of the impugned Award showed no arguments on those issues were addressed before the Tribunal. Even otherwise if it is held that the workmen whose names are found in the order of reference are found to be the workmen of Corporation they themselves can constitute a substantial section of the workmen to maintain the reference. Even otherwise the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Tata Chemicals Limited v. Their Workmen reported in 1978 1 LLN 547 has held that rbrn a minority trade union can validly raise an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.