Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.43 seconds)Section 25N in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Pathumma And Others vs State Of Kerala And Others on 16 January, 1978
It has been indicated in
Meenakshi Mills case2 that ordinarily any restriction so
imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a
directive principle can be presumed to be reasonable
restriction in public interest and a restriction imposed on
the employer's right to terminate the service of an employee
is not alien to the constitutional scheme
13 State of Madras v. VG. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 : 1952 SCR
597; State of U.P. v. Kaushailiya, AIR 1964 SC: 416: (1964)
4 SCR 1002; Bachan Singh v. State a Punjab, (1971) 1 SCC 712
AIR 1971 SC 2164; Pathumma v. State a Kerala, (1978)2 SCC 1
: AIR 1978 SC 771
14 Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 2
SCC 670: AIR 1977 SC 1825; Excel Wear v. Union of India,
(1978) 4 SCC 224: 1978 SCC (L&S) 509 :(1979) 1 SCR 1009
15 Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala,
(1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 146 1; State of Kerala v.
N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 : 1976, SCC (L&S) 227 : AIR
1976 SC 490; Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 SCC 1 :
The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1996
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Excel Wear Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1978
It has been indicated in
Meenakshi Mills case2 that ordinarily any restriction so
imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a
directive principle can be presumed to be reasonable
restriction in public interest and a restriction imposed on
the employer's right to terminate the service of an employee
is not alien to the constitutional scheme
13 State of Madras v. VG. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 : 1952 SCR
597; State of U.P. v. Kaushailiya, AIR 1964 SC: 416: (1964)
4 SCR 1002; Bachan Singh v. State a Punjab, (1971) 1 SCC 712
AIR 1971 SC 2164; Pathumma v. State a Kerala, (1978)2 SCC 1
: AIR 1978 SC 771
14 Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 2
SCC 670: AIR 1977 SC 1825; Excel Wear v. Union of India,
(1978) 4 SCC 224: 1978 SCC (L&S) 509 :(1979) 1 SCR 1009
15 Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala,
(1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 146 1; State of Kerala v.
N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 : 1976, SCC (L&S) 227 : AIR
1976 SC 490; Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 SCC 1 :
The Amending Act, 1897
Workmen Of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Meenakshi Mills Ltd. And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 May, 1992
16 Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd., (1992) 3 SCC 336: 1992
SCC (L&S) 679
514
which indicates that the employer's right is not absolute.
We may indicate here that even in Excel Wear case1 it has
been held that: