Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.42 seconds)Section 31 in The M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960
Section 27 in The M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 17 July, 1990
5. While supporting contentions of respondent No. 1, Shri S.H. Moyal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the representative union of the employees for their benefits after due notice validly agreed for the changes. Petitioner being rival trade union is trying to settle political scores through this writ petition before this Court, which is not the proper forum. It was further contended that changes would not fall under Items 10 and 11 of Schedule I but fall under Item No. 6 or at any rate under Item 5 of Schedule II which gives a right to individual employee to challenge it before the Labour Court spread out in the territory of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh before its bifurcation into two States under M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 but not a single employee challenged the changes after the implementation. It was further contended that change in working hours and curtailment of public holiday are part of package deal negotiated by the respondent No. 2 as representative Union of the employees and it is binding on all employees whether member or not in terms of Section 97 (1) (b) of the Act and it is not open to challenge at the instance of petitioner. It is further submitted that agreement was arrived at as a result of negotiations wherein respondent No. 2 representing the collective bargaining force of employees in the spirit mutual give and take accepted changes in working hours while obtaining higher wage structures for the employees and this was done after due notice under Section 31. Placing reliance on following decisions of the Supreme Court in Herbertsons Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1977 SC 322; Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 311; Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., AIR 1990 SC 1801; P. Virudhachalam and Ors. v. The Management of Lotus Mills and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 554, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that mutual settlement arrived at with the representative union in the course of collective bargaining has to be placed on higher pedestal and unacceptability by a minor rival union pales into insignificance, as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy compensatory costs.
P. Virudhachalam & Ors vs The Management Of Lotus Mills & Anr on 9 December, 1997
In the considered opinion of this Court law laid down by the Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra) and Herbetsons Ltd. (supra), which was subsequently followed in P. Virudhachalam (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
Article 23 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 61 in The M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs The Workmen on 28 September, 1972
In the considered opinion of this Court law laid down by the Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra) and Herbetsons Ltd. (supra), which was subsequently followed in P. Virudhachalam (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.