Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.53 seconds)
The Management Of Manali Petrochemical ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Labour-Ii, ... on 22 November, 2006 cites

Maharaj Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 2 November, 1976

16. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that the words "person aggrieved" are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. To drive home this point, the learned Counsel cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. . But the said decision is of no help to the third respondent, since it was a case arising under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, in which the State of Uttar Pradesh, as a co-plaintiff, pursued the matter to the High Court while the other plaintiff dropped out of the litigation. The very right of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an appeal was questioned on the ground that the State was not a "person aggrieved", despite having suffered a decree. It is in the said context and in view of the larger public interest that the State of Uttar Pradesh was held to be a "person aggrieved" in the said case, providing a wider meaning and import to the words "person aggrieved". But for the appeal, Page 3248 the State of Uttar Pradesh would have been left without a remedy in the said case. But in the present case, the third respondent has innumerable other remedies available to them as against the petitioner and hence the third respondent cannot come within the meaning of the term "person aggrieved" under Section 15 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 219 - Cited by 230 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Workmen Of The Food Corporation Of Indla vs M/S. Food Corporation Of India on 28 February, 1985

But the said decision is of no avail to the third respondent for two reasons viz., (a) that it was a case arising out of an Industrial Dispute raised by the workmen for alteration of their terms and conditions of service in violation of Page 3250 Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and (b) that in that case the contract labour were made permanent and subsequently there was an attempt to change their status once again as Contract Labour. In the case on hand, the third respondent raised an Industrial Dispute but the same was refused to be referred to the Labour Court. The third respondent has not so far chosen to challenge the Government Order refusing to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. Even now it is open to the third respondent to pursue their remedies against the said order and the appeal under Section 15 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, cannot be used by the employees-Union as a substitute for a remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 79 - D A Desai - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001

The function of the Court is to interpret the statute to ascertain the intent of the legislature, the Parliament. Where the language of the statute is clear and explicit, the Court must give effect to it because in that case words of the statute unequivocally speak of the intention of the legislature. This rule of literal interpretation has to be adhered to and a provision in the statute has to be understood in its ordinary natural sense unless the Court finds that the provision sought to be interpreted is vague or obscurely worded in which event the other principles of interpretation may be called in aid. A plain reading of the said phrase shows that it is lucid and clear. There is no obscurity, no ambiguity and no abstruseness. Therefore the words used therein must be construed in their natural ordinary meaning as commonly understood.
Supreme Court of India Cites 96 - Cited by 748 - Full Document
1   2 Next