Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978
"25. Since the difficulty has arisen because of the judicial interpretation given to the definition of 'Industry' in the Industrial
Disputes Act, there is no reason why the matter should not be judicially re-examined. In the present case, the function of the Coir Board is to promote coir industry, open markets for it and provide facilities to make the coir industry's products more marketable. It is not set up to run any industry itself. Looking to the predominant purpose for which it is set up we would not call it an industry. However, if one were to apply the tests laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's case (supra), it is an organisation where there are employers and employees. The organisation does some useful work for the benefit of others. Therefore, it will have to be called an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992
It is, therefore, evident that the only basis for the respondent in not following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act is their assumption that the question as to whether the Coir Board is an industry or not, is under consideration before a larger Bench. Now that it has emerged that the Supreme Court had declined to reconsider the judgment in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) and an indication was given in Coir Board, Ernakulam, Cochin case (supra), that the parameters stipulated in the Bangalore Water Supply case (supra), would bring Coir Board within the definition of 'Industry' and the respondent is under obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act.
Coir Board Ernakulam Kerala State & Anr. vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors. on 10 November, 1998
It was in this context that the matter came to be dealt with by three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice, in Coir Board Ernakulam Kerala State v. Indira Devi, , wherein it was held as under:
H.D. Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors on 10 September, 1985
14. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the Court finds that the retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and all consequential benefits. He relied on several judgments, such as, H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India, 1986 (1) LLJ 127, Central Inlandwater Transport Coporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath, etc. The directions contained in these decisions are relatable to the facts of the cases.
P.R. Ramachandran And Ors. vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply And Drainage ... on 19 January, 1996
8. In the present case, the order of termination discloses that neither the
petitioners were issued any notices, nor the procedure stipulated under Section 25-F of the Act was followed. Either way, there was a flagrant violation of law. The consequences of these violations did not depend on any disputed question or finding of fact. As a matter of fact, the respondents did not dispute the non-issuance of notices or non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Act. The justification was purely on legal basis, which will be dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs. Therefore, the judgment of the Madras High Court in P.R. Ramachandran case (supra), which in turn followed the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, squarely applies to the facts of this case. The objection raised by the respondents as to maintainability of writ petitions is, therefore, rejected.
P.G.I.Of M.E. & Research, Chandigarh vs Raj Kumar on 2 November, 2000
In PGI of Medical Education and Research case (supra), it was held as under:
Hindustan Motors Ltd vs Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya & Anr on 12 July, 2002
These two decisions were cited with approval and followed in Hindustan Motors Ltd. case (supra).