Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.86 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
D.P. Maheshwari vs Delhi Administration And Others on 25 July, 1980
"The High Court ordinarily does not interfere with the reference made by the Government in exercise of its power under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the 1947 Act and there are number of decisions of different Courts, that such questions must be left to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Courts. The Courts are also of the view that the practice of the employer to raise objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal or that of the Government to make a reference must not be encouraged because the whole object of expeditious adjudication of disputes by the Labour Court or the Tribunal is defeated if writ petitions challenging the competence of the Government to make a reference or the power of Labour Court or the Tribunal to adjudicate such disputes are frequently entertained or are entertained for asking. Nevertheless, if in a given case, the Court finds that the Government has acted in clear contravention of the provisions of law or has taken its decision on extraneous or irrelevant considerations and no investigation into dispute facts is involved the High Court can in appropriate cases interfere with the order of reference passed by the State. The words of caution which have been highlighted in the judgments of the Supreme Court in D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration: (supra) and Workmen employed, in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) have always to be kept in mind by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, where a challenge is made to the competence of the Government to make a reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication by Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, at the same time the Court cannot ignore that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Management of Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd., Madras v. The Workers and Ors. (1962-II-LLJ-227) (SC)."
M/S Cipla Ltd. & Ors vs Ripu Daman Bhanot & Anr on 12 April, 1999
12. The interim award passed by the Labour Court was not sustained nor the judgment passed by the High Court by the Apex Court in Cipla's case (supra).
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Binny Limited vs Presiding Officer And Ors. on 5 June, 1984
Reliance is also placed for this fact on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Binny Limited v. Presiding Officer and Others (1986-I-LLJ-220) and J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The Labour Appellate Tribunal of India Calcutta and Ors. (1959-1-LLJ-227) (SC) wherein it was held that the adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act does not mean adjudication according to the strict law of master and servant. An adjudicator's award may contain provisions for settlement of a dispute which no Court could order if it was bound by ordinary law.
Workmen Of M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Ors vs Management Of M/S Hindusian Lever Ltd on 5 January, 1984
"The High Court ordinarily does not interfere with the reference made by the Government in exercise of its power under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the 1947 Act and there are number of decisions of different Courts, that such questions must be left to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Courts. The Courts are also of the view that the practice of the employer to raise objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal or that of the Government to make a reference must not be encouraged because the whole object of expeditious adjudication of disputes by the Labour Court or the Tribunal is defeated if writ petitions challenging the competence of the Government to make a reference or the power of Labour Court or the Tribunal to adjudicate such disputes are frequently entertained or are entertained for asking. Nevertheless, if in a given case, the Court finds that the Government has acted in clear contravention of the provisions of law or has taken its decision on extraneous or irrelevant considerations and no investigation into dispute facts is involved the High Court can in appropriate cases interfere with the order of reference passed by the State. The words of caution which have been highlighted in the judgments of the Supreme Court in D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration: (supra) and Workmen employed, in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) have always to be kept in mind by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, where a challenge is made to the competence of the Government to make a reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication by Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, at the same time the Court cannot ignore that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Management of Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd., Madras v. The Workers and Ors. (1962-II-LLJ-227) (SC)."
Tata Chemicals Ltd vs Its Workmen on 23 March, 1978
8. The Apex Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors. (1983-II-LLJ-425) (SC); Workmen Employed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1984-II-LLJ-391) (SC); Mafatlal Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Mafatlal Engineering Industries Employees Union and Ors. 1991 2 LLN 286; Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. The Workmen employed under Tata Chemicals Ltd. (1978-II-LLJ-22) (SC); Cipla Ltd. and Ors. v. Ripu Daman Bhanot and Anr. (1999-I-LLJ-900) (SC) and Jaipur Polyspin Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (1994-II-LLJ-917) (Raj) relied upon on the point, had held that the Tribunal must adjudicate the dispute on merits and practice and raising of the preliminary objections to the reference was disapproved.