Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Management Of Muttrapore Tea Estate vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 22 April, 2004
cites
Section 36 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen on 9 September, 1976
We find that there is similar provision under the Family Court debarring the advocates from appearing before the Family Court in the matter of matrimonial dispute and the matter went upto the apex Court where the Apex Court refused to declare the deeming provision as ultra vires of Section 36 of the Act and the subject-matter for consideration before the Apex Court was in the case of Pardip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen reported in (1977) 2 SCC 339 wherein the Apex Court held as follows :-
Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni ... on 17 November, 1982
11. Although the observations were made by the Apex Court way back in the year 1978, the provisions have not been changed by the Legislature during the last 25 years. The decision in the Board of Trustees (supra) was approved by the Apex Court in the case reported in (1997) 11 SCC 346.
The Dunlop Rubber Co vs Workmen on 10 November, 1964
and Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Workmen, in which it has been held that in a disciplinary enquiry before a domestic tribunal a person accused of misconduct has to conduct his own case and therefore as a corrolary it cannot be said that in such an enquiry against a workman natural justice demand that he ought to be represented by a representative of his union much less a member of the legal profession. While buttressing this approach, an observation was made that unless rules prescribed for holding the enquiry do not make an enabling provision that the workman charged with misconduct is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner, the Enquiry Officer and/or the employer would be perfectly justified in rejecting such a request as it would vitiate the informal atmosphere of a domestic tribunal.
Andhra Pradesh Power Diploma ... vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 7 July, 1995
In the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Diploma Engineers Association v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, reported in 1995 (2) Lab & Ind. Case 2654, the embargo put under Section 36(4) of the Act was sought to be overcome by drawing up a panel of advocates and designating them as Honorary Secretary by the State Chamber of Commerce and Industry. This did not find favour with the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Full Bench merely reiterated its fond hope that the Legislature may consider the matter or is to vest the authority either in the court or in the Tribunal.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Crescent Dyes And Chemicals Ltd. vs Ram Naresh Tripathi on 16 December, 1992
The respondent Union of India on the other hand submits that the right to representation is not a right and the representation through counsel may be allowed only if the statutory rules or standing orders permit the same and they have placed reliance on two decisions of the Aex Court: (1) Cresent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi reported in (1993) 2 SCC 115 and (2) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 626.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Maharashtra Genl.Kamgar Union & Ors on 14 December, 1998
The respondent Union of India on the other hand submits that the right to representation is not a right and the representation through counsel may be allowed only if the statutory rules or standing orders permit the same and they have placed reliance on two decisions of the Aex Court: (1) Cresent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi reported in (1993) 2 SCC 115 and (2) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 626.
1