Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd., ... vs Thakore (I.G.) (Chairman, Industrial ... on 30 June, 1964
But where it reconsiders its earlier decision it can make the reference only if the dispute is an industrial one and either exists at that stage or is apprehended and the reference it makes must be with regard to that and no other industrial dispute Cf, Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, (1968-I-LLJ-834).
Goodyear (India) Ltd. And Anr. vs Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 5 March, 1968
), Rawalpindi Victory Transport Co (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1964-I-LLJ-644) (Punjab), Champion Cycle Industries v. State of U.P. (1964-I-LLJ-724) (All), Goodyear (India) Ltd., Jaipur v. Industrial Tribunal, (1968-11- LLJ-682) and Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. v. Indus trial Tribunal Jabalpur, 1968 (17) FLR 129. The reason given in these decisions is that the function of the Government either under Section 10(1) of the Central Act or a similar provision in a State Act being administrative, principles such as res judicate applicable to judicial acts do not apply and such a principle cannot be imported for consideration when the Government first refuses to refer and later changes its mind. In fact, when the Government re fuses to make a reference it does not exercise its power; on the other hand it refuses to exercises its power and it is only when it decides to refer that it exercises its power. Consequently the power to refer cannot be said to have been exhausted when it has declined to make a reference at an earlier stage. There is thus a considerable body of judicial opinion according to which 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 at a later stage. In this view the mere fact that there has been a lapse of time or a party to the dispute was, by the earlier refusal, led to believe that there would be no reference and acts upon such belief, does not affect the jurisdiction of the Government to make the reference".
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Western India Match Co. Ltd vs Western India Match Co. Workers Union & ... on 9 January, 1970
Firstly, Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was being considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court while deciding the Western Watch Co., case (supra). Therefore, the binding nature of this presidential Authority cannot be doubted while it is true that the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court has taken the view that a right of hearing should be conferred if the Government is making a reference at a later stage having once already taken a view of not making a reference. Secondly, the very making of the reference can be said to be exercising the powers under Section 4-K of the said Act or Section 10 of the Central Act. Not making a reference or refusing to make a reference cannot be said to be exercising a power of making a reference. Therefore, with great respect to the decision of the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court, this Court is finding itself so much bound by the said ecision of the Supreme Court that the persuasive value of the aforesaid Full Bench has lost its efficacy.
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
State Of Madras vs C. P. Sarathy And Another on 5 December, 1952
9. "In State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy (1953 (1) LLJ 174) this Court held on construction of Section 10(1) of the Central Act that the function of the appropriate Government thereunder is an administrative function. It was so held presumably because the Government cannot go into the merits of the dispute, its function being only to refer such a dispute for adjudication so that the industrial relations between the employer and his employees may not continue to remain disturbed and the dispute may be resolved through a judicial process as speedily as possible. 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.
1