Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Jagdish Chander on 3 February, 2005
In Delhi Transport Corpn. (supra) the Special Bench of the Delhi
High Court after referring to various decisions held that the emphasis of
the legislature (in Section 17B) was of the expression 'reinstatement'
rather than on 'award'.
Raj. State Road Transport Corp., & Anr vs Satya Prakash & Anr on 22 November, 2013
In Rajasthan State Transport Corpn. (supra), it was held that in
adjudicating proceeding initiated upon a complaint under Section 33A on
the ground of contravention of Section 33(2)(b) proviso Tribunal must
treat it like a reference under Section 10 and go into the merits by giving
opportunity of hearing to parties to present their cases. It was held that
Section 33A sub-section (2)(b) clearly lays down that when a complaint is
made under the said sub-section the Tribunal shall adjudicate upon the
complaint as if it was a dispute referred to it and shall submit his/its
award to the appropriate Government and the provisions of this Act shall
apply accordingly.
Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 11 August, 1997
In Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Division
Bench held that the words of Section 17B are plain and do not warrant
the inclusion of an order under Section 33(5) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. It was further held that Award as per Section 2(b) signifies
determination of an industrial dispute and conciliation officer is not
included by the I.D. Act, as one of the authorities who can pass an award.
The jurisdiction of the authorities under Section 33 is limited. They can
neither finally adjudicate on the justness of an order of dismissal nor
direct reinstatement, although the consequence of a refusal to grant
approval may render the order of dismissal void.
Messrs. Kamarhatty Co. Ltd vs Shri Ushnath Pakrashi on 21 May, 1959
It follows, therefore, that the tribunal has the power to make such
order as to relief as may be appropriate in the case and as it can make if a
dispute is referred to it relating to the dismissal or discharge of a
workman. In such a dispute it is open to the tribunal in proper cases to
order reinstatement. Therefore, a complaint under S.33A being in the
nature of a dispute referred to a tribunal under S. 10 of the Act, it is
certainly within its power to order reinstatement on such complaint, if the
complaint is that the employee has been dismissed or discharged in
breach of S.33. (Kamarhatty Company, Ltd. Vs. Ushnath Pakrashi;
1959 (2) LLJ 556 (SC)
It therefore, follows that if the said order is challenged the provision
of Section 17B would apply.
National Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd. And ... vs Fourth Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 19 November, 1959
Where the employer asks for permission to dismiss, it is sufficient if
before the managerial enquiry a prima facie case has been made out,
because in such proceedings it is a question of lifting the ban and an
exhaustive enquiry is not essential. In the case of an adjudication under
Section 10, the question is not one of prima facie evidence merely but of
evidence justifying the finding. (The Law of Industrial Disputes, Vol. 2,
O.P. Malhotra: and also National Tobacco Co. Vs. Fourth Industrial
Tribunal AIR 1960 Cal 249).