Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hochtlef Gammon vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 4 September, 1975
In Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa and Ors. , the dispute pertained to the payment of bonus to the labouers engaged by M/s. Hochtief Gammon. In August, 1957, the Hindustan Steel Ltd (in short company) and M/s. Hochtief Gammon (in short contractor) entered into a contract for execution of the foundation and civil engineering working of the Hot and Cold Rolling Mills at Rourkela including the purification and other civil engineering work connected with the water supply to the rolling mills. As per the contract, all payments to the labour were to be made by the said company. On demand of the union, reference was made to the labour court on the question whether the workers of the contractor were entitled to any bonus. The contractor declaiming his liability requested the labour court for impleadment of the company as respondent, but the application was dismissed by the labour court and the order was not only upheld by the High Court but also Supreme Court. In those facts, the contractor submitted an application to the State Government seeking modification of the earlier reference order to the industrial tribunal by adding the said company as party respondent to decide who was liable to pay bonus. When the Government rejected the application, the contractor approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of mandamus, which was also dismissed and matter then reached back to Hon'ble Supreme Court. In those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "Government's order in this case really amounts to an outright refusal to consider relevant matters and the Government also misdirected itself in point of law in wholly omitting to take into account the relevant considerations which as held by the House of Lords is unlawful behaviour. In para No. 15 of the judgment it further held as under:
Western India Match Co. Ltd vs Western India Match Co. Workers Union & ... on 9 January, 1970
11. Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. The Western India Match Co. Workers Union and Ors. was a case in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether subsequent reference by the appropriate Government which had earlier refused to make the reference on the same question was barred by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the function of the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947 was purely administrative in nature and while deciding to make a reference it cannot go into the merits of the dispute. The Court held that in the light of the nature of the function of the Government and the object for which the power is conferred on it, it would be difficult to hold that once the Government has refused to refer it cannot change its mind on a reconsideration of the matter either because new facts have come to light or because it had misunderstood the existing facts or for any other relevant consideration and decide to make the reference. So long as an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and the Government is of the opinion that it is so, the fact that it had earlier refused to exercise its power does not preclude it from exercising it later later stage.
Avon Services (Production Agencies) ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Haryana ... on 6 October, 1978
12. Similar dispute again cropped up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and Ors. reported in 1979 (1) SCC I wherein the Government initially refused to make a reference on a dispute pertaining to termination of two workmen. Subsequently however, the Government referred the dispute and the tribunal upon adjudication thereof found the retrenchment of the workmen to be invalid and unjustified and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with back wages, which award was upheld even by the High Court. In appeal when the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, an argument was raised on behalf of the management that the reference itself was not competent because having once refused to make reference, the appropriate Government could not refer the same dispute again unless it came up with some fresh or additional material which must be disclosed when the validity of the reference was challenged. Repelling the argument, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 8 held as under:
New Bank Of India Employees Union & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1996
13. This court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4739/2003 Union Bank of India v. Union of India decided at Jaipur Bench on 18.8.2003 was called upon to decide whether a corrigendum issued by the appropriate Government in the terms of reference subsequent to the making of original reference was legally permissible. In that case also terms of reference originally made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court was to the effect whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in not granting Pension to Shri Sunil Kumar Dawan, Clerk who claimed to have voluntarily retired from Banks' Service from 4.3.1993, was justified and if not, what relief he was entitled to and from which date. Subsequently, the appropriate Government by corrigendum issued on 20/25.3.2003 modified the terms of the reference to the effect whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in terminating services of Sh. Sunil Kumar
Sharma, Clerk by treating him to have voluntarily retired from service from 04.03.1993 and denying him pension is legal and justified and if not, what relief was be entitled to. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition while observing that this objection could be raised by the employer even before the tribunal. The aforesaid order was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 978/2003, decided on 21.1.2004 holding that there is no specific provision prohibiting modification of the dispute referred and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Jaipur Hosiery Mills (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs The State Of Rajasthan & Others on 27 April, 1970
17. I have carefully examined the ratio of the judgment in O.N. Ganguly cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Apart from the distinction pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court in Jaipur Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra) it should be noticed that that was a case where the issue involved was one pertaining to cancellation or super-session of the reference made and not of the modification or correction. The said case is therefore distinguishable on facts and it ratio cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Besides that, in para No. 10 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken categorical note of Section 10(5) of the Act and has observed as under:
Section 17 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bihar vs D. N. Ganguly & Others on 22 August, 1958
Before the Division Bench, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court O.N. Ganguly (supra) was also relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: