Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.49 seconds)The Trade Unions Act, 1926
Eastern Railway Employees' Congress vs General Manager, Eastern Railway And ... on 10 December, 1964
The other cases cited are Newspapers Ltd. v. U.P. State Industrial Tribunal and Ors. ; The Hindi Sahitya Sammelon and Ors. v. Shri Jagadish Swarup and Ors. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 678 ; Eastern Railway Employees' Congress v. General Manager, Eastern Railway and Ors A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 389; Kesoram Rayon Workers' Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions and Ors. (1968) 1 Labour Law Cases 1539; In re : Kerala Education Bill 1957 A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956; State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. A.T.R. 1963 S.C. 1811; Raghubar DayalJai Parkash and Ors. v. The Union of India and Anr. A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 263 ; and Raja Kulkani v. The State of Bombay A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 73 ; In All India Bank Employees' Association v. The National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and Ors. 1961-II
L.L.J. 385 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 171, it was said by the Supreme Court that the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) does not extend to concomitant right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike. This makes an end of the appellants' case.
Kesoram Rayon Workmen'S Union vs Registrar Of Trade Unions And Ors. on 22 November, 1966
The other cases cited are Newspapers Ltd. v. U.P. State Industrial Tribunal and Ors. ; The Hindi Sahitya Sammelon and Ors. v. Shri Jagadish Swarup and Ors. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 678 ; Eastern Railway Employees' Congress v. General Manager, Eastern Railway and Ors A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 389; Kesoram Rayon Workers' Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions and Ors. (1968) 1 Labour Law Cases 1539; In re : Kerala Education Bill 1957 A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956; State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. A.T.R. 1963 S.C. 1811; Raghubar DayalJai Parkash and Ors. v. The Union of India and Anr. A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 263 ; and Raja Kulkani v. The State of Bombay A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 73 ; In All India Bank Employees' Association v. The National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and Ors. 1961-II
L.L.J. 385 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 171, it was said by the Supreme Court that the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) does not extend to concomitant right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike. This makes an end of the appellants' case.
The State Trading Corporation Of India ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 26 July, 1963
The other cases cited are Newspapers Ltd. v. U.P. State Industrial Tribunal and Ors. ; The Hindi Sahitya Sammelon and Ors. v. Shri Jagadish Swarup and Ors. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 678 ; Eastern Railway Employees' Congress v. General Manager, Eastern Railway and Ors A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 389; Kesoram Rayon Workers' Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions and Ors. (1968) 1 Labour Law Cases 1539; In re : Kerala Education Bill 1957 A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956; State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. A.T.R. 1963 S.C. 1811; Raghubar DayalJai Parkash and Ors. v. The Union of India and Anr. A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 263 ; and Raja Kulkani v. The State of Bombay A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 73 ; In All India Bank Employees' Association v. The National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and Ors. 1961-II
L.L.J. 385 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 171, it was said by the Supreme Court that the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) does not extend to concomitant right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike. This makes an end of the appellants' case.
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union Of India on 10 February, 1970
As pointed out in
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India :
Tata Engineering And Locomotive Co. Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Others on 25 February, 1964
In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors (1954) 6 S.C.R. 885, in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by a company challenging the levy of sales tax by the State of Bihar, two shareholders were also impleaded as petitioners. It was urged on behalf of the shareholders that in substance the interests of the company and of the shareholders were identical and the shareholders were entitled to
maintain the petition, as the company not being a citizen was incompetent to enforce the rights guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. The Court rejected the contention and observed that what the company could not achieve directly, it could not, relying upon the doctrine of lifting the veil, achieve indirectly. If learned Counsel is right in his contention that the union could not have made this application for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution the petitioners cannot successfully maintain this application either.
Damyanti Naranga vs The Union Of India And Others on 23 February, 1971
In Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. The Union of India and Ors , it was said that the right to form an association necessarily implies that the persons forming the association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. That principle is not involved in the present appeal.