Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 60 (0.51 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Nandram vs M/S Garware Polyster Ltd on 16 February, 2016
5. In the facts of this case both the Labour Courts have
the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Hence, the Labour
Court at Aurangabad is well within its jurisdiction to
consider the complaint filed by the appellant. Therefore,
Page 36 of 100
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2025 21:21:25 :::
JUDGMENT-APP-585-2009+F(1).DOCX
we set aside the order [Nandram v. Garware Polysters Ltd.,
2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1908] passed by the High Court
and the Industrial Court at Aurangabad and restore the
order passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad though for
different reasons.
Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) ... vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. And Ors on 1 February, 1967
20. This test thus requires ascertaining where substantially the
dispute arose and not where the petitioner was employed or
dismissed, as assumed by Mr. Rane. Firstly such a test can never
be inflexible and must necessarily depend on facts of each case.
The Head office at Ahmednagar cannot be excluded from the
place of dispute when the disciplinary control vested with
management at Ahmednagar where the decision to hold enquiry
and dismiss the petitioner was taken, and where the petitioner
was required to approach in compliance with the proviso to
section 42(4) of the Act. The dispute substantially, if not wholly,
shall have to be held as having arisen at Ahmednagar. This would
be so notwithstanding that, on the facts and circumstances before
it, this Court held the same to have arisen substantially in Bombay
in the above case though the Head office was located at
Ahmedabad itself. Even section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code,
Page 63 of 100
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2025 21:21:25 :::
JUDGMENT-APP-585-2009+F(1).DOCX
contemplates accrual of causes of action of a given case at more
than one place. Second alternative requirement for jurisdiction,
namely the residence of the defendant as conceived under the
above ratio, which was not available in that case, is satisfied in
the present case. Underlying approach appears to be the test of
enforceability of the order in the event of claimant's claim being
upheld. The order in the present case can be effectively enforced
at Ahmednagar within the jurisdiction of the Poona Labour Court.
Looked at from any point of view the Poona Labour Court appear
to be competent to try and dispose of the dispute.
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946
Section 21 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Bikash Bhushan Ghosh & Ors vs M/S. Novartis India Limited & Anr on 27 April, 2007
40. Mr. Sawant relied on the following judgments: - (1)
Shrikant V Gawas Vs. Tulsiani Chambers Premises Co-op. Soc
Ltd11; (2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Member, Industrial
Court, Chandrapur and Anr12; (3) Anil Murlidharan Vs. Larson
11
2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1356
12
2002 (2) Mh.L.J. 331
Page 23 of 100
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2025 21:21:25 :::
JUDGMENT-APP-585-2009+F(1).DOCX
& Toubro13; (4) State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Zilla Krida
Sankul Karmachari Sanghatana14; (5) Alchemist Ltd. Vs. State
Bank of Sikkim15; (6) State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika 16;
(7) Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. Vs. Dhanubhai Motilal Vin &
Ors17 (8) Workmen of Sri Ranga Vilas Moters (P) Ltd. Vs. Sri
Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd.18; (9) Bikash Bhushan Ghosh &
Ors. Vs. Novartis India Ltd. & Anr.19; (10) Laxman Baburao
Repal Vs. Nagar District Urban Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Ahmednagar & Ors20; (11) Emerald Valley Estates Ltd.
Vs. Secretary for Kerala, Estates and Staffs' Union of South
India & Anr.21; (12) V. G. Jagdishan Vs. Indofos Industries
Limited22; (13) GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra)
(14) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee 23 and
(15) Ramlal's Vs. Labour Court, Patiala & Ors.24.
Alchemist Limited And Another vs State Bank Of Sikkim And Others on 16 March, 2007
In Alchemist Ltd & Anr. Vs State Bank of Sikkim & Ors44,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of
deciding whether the facts averred by the Appellant-Petitioner
would or would not constitute a part of the cause of action,
one must consider whether such facts constitute a material,
essential, or integral part of the cause of action. If so, it forms
part of the cause of action. If it is not, it does not form a part
of the cause of action. In determining the said question, the
substance of the matter and not the form thereof has to be
considered. Even if a small fraction of the cause of action
arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would
have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition.
Nevertheless, it must be a "part of the cause of action",
nothing less than that."