Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.29 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978
6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Coir Board, Emakulam, Kerala State and Anr. v. Indira Devi, P.S. and Ors. has held that the judgment in the matter of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa , was holding the field and further observed that the judgment in the matter of Bangalore Water Supply did not need any reconsideration. The order was passed by the Supreme Court on a reference made by a seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. In the said matter of Bangalore Water Supply, the Supreme Court observed that the person employed with the Board was a workman. Applying the ratio of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, I have no hesitation in holding that the Department in question in fact is an industry. The first submission made by the learned Counsel for the State deserves to and is accordingly rejected.
Nedungadi Bank Ltd vs K.P. Madhavankutty And Ors on 28 January, 2000
In case of the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. reported in 2000 Lab. IC 703, the matter was relating to reference and tenability thereof. A bank employee was dismissed from service after enquiry. Remedy of appeal was availed by the employee but unsuccessfully. Seven years thereafter, employee complaining of discrimination on the ground that two other dismissed employees were reinstated by bank, but it has not been mentioned as to under what circumstances, they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated. In such facts of that case, it has been held by the Apex Court that the reference of such dispute was bad both on ground of delay and lack of industrial dispute existing or apprehended. In the said decision, the management bank had challenged the reference by filing the writ petition. Here, in this case, it is not so. In this case, the Board has not challenged the validity of the reference itself, and therefore, the law laid down in the said decision by the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Sapan Kumar Pandit vs U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors on 24 July, 2001
10. Relevant observations made by the Apex Court in case of Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. Paras 9, 14 and 15 are reproduced as under: