Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.43 seconds)
Devendra Kumar And Another vs Presiding Officer And 2 Others on 18 January, 2019 cites

Hochtief Gammon vs Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, ... on 1 April, 1964

36. Seen in this light, in the instant case, the order dated 20.04.2011 passed by the State Government only allowed the Representative Workmen to be added as "Workmen Party no. 2" to the existing reference. On the face of it, it did not alter or amend the terms of reference made by order dated 20.02.2004. It only sought to make the adjudication more effective and real, by allowing the workmen to be properly represented before the Labour Court. In face of the Union having withdrawn form the reference, the adjudication proceedings, if they had continued without anyone to represent the workmen, would have been wholly ex-parte against them and therefore unfair and unjust. The course adopted by the State Government appears to be clearly permissible in view of the ratio in Hochtief Gammon Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 101 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Munni Lal And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary And 4 ... on 27 March, 2014

10. It is in such circumstances that the impugned award was framed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court framed two issues to the effect (i) whether the dispute had been validly espoused by the Union and (ii) whether the Representative Workmen were legally chosen representatives and whether they had been validly made workmen party no. 2 in the pre-existing reference. On the first issue it opined, the dispute had not been espoused by the Union and therefore it had not been validly raised. On the second issue, applying the decision of this Court in Munni Lal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2014) 142 FLR 40, it was held, the Representative Workmen had not been validly made a party and the State Government could not have amended the array of parties to the reference. It has further observed, the State Government could have made an additional reference but not amend the existing reference. Upon that reasoning, the reference made was answered against the Workmen.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Second Labour Court And Ors. on 10 August, 1962

41. Similarly, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd., Vs. Second Labour Court and Ors. (supra) is also distinguishable as in that case, the names of the workers not included in the original reference order were sought to be introduced by way of amendment, thus enlarging or varying the terms of reference to bring for adjudication fresh/new rights. Such an act was questioned and the challenge sustained by the Calcutta High Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Western India Match Co. Ltd vs Western India Match Co. Workers Union & ... on 9 January, 1970

"The only condition for an individual dispute turning into an industrial dispute, as laid down in the case of Dimakuchi Tea Estate [(1958) SCR 1156] is the necessity of a community of interest and not whether the concerned workman was or was not a member of the union at the time of his dismissal. The parties to the reference being the employer and his employees, the test must necessarily be whether the dispute referred to adjudication is one in which the workmen or a substantial section of them have a direct and substantial interest even though such a dispute relates to a single workman. It must follow that the existence of such an interest, evidenced by the espousal by them of the cause, must be at the date when the reference is made and not necessarily at the date when the cause occurs, otherwise, as aforesaid, in some cases a dispute which was originally an individual one cannot become an industrial dispute. Further, the community of interest does not depend on whether the concerned workman was a member or not at the date when the cause occurred, for, without his being a member the dispute may be such that other workmen by having a common interest therein would be justified in taking up the dispute as their own and espousing it."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 124 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Binny Ltd vs Their Workmen on 15 February, 1972

33. So also, once a valid reference arises, it would be of no consequence, if subsequent to the reference being made, the Union withdraws from the same. Upon the reference having arisen, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court gets created. Then it remains for the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute refered to it. At that stage and for that purpose, it would be incidental and not jurisdictional as to who represents the matter before the Labour Court for either of the parties. Merely because the Union that espoused such an industrial dispute may have withdrawn from that dispute, it would have no bearing on the continuance of exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court viz a viz the reference already before it. The Supreme Court in Binny Ltd. Vs. Workmen, (1972) 3 SCC 806, has held as below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 60 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document
1   2 Next