Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)
Ram Lakhan Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 20 May, 1999 cites

Chemicals & Fibres Of India Ltd vs D. G. Bhoir & Ors on 2 May, 1975

"Section 2A is in effect a definition section. It provides in effect that what would not be an industrial dispute as defined in Section 2(k) as interpreted by this Court would be deemed to be an Industrial dispute in certain circumstances. As was pointed out by this Court in Chemicals and Fibres of India Limited v. D.G. Bhoir, (1975) 4 SCC 332, the definition could as well have been made part of clause (k) of Section 2 instead of being put in as a separate section. There is, therefore, no question of giving retrospective effect to that section in making the reference which resulted in the award under consideration. When the section uses the words "where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman" it does not deal with the question as to when that was done. It refers to a situation or a state of affairs. In other words where there is a discharge, dismissal retrenchment or termination of service otherwise the dispute relating to such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination becomes an industrial dispute. It is no objection to this to say that this interpretation would lead to a situation where the dispute would be reopened after the lapse of many years and referred for adjudication under Section 10. The question of creation of new rights by Section 2A, is also not very relevant. Even, before the introduction of Section 2A a dispute relating to an individual workman could become an industrial dispute by its being sponsored by a labour union or a group of workmen. Any reference under Section 10 would be made only sometime after the dispute itself has arisen. The only relevant factor for consideration in making a reference under Section 10 is whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. There cannot be any doubt that on the day the reference was made in the present case an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2A did exist. Normally the dispute regarding an individual workman is not an industrial dispute unless it is sponsored by the union to which he belongs or a group of workmen. The change made by Section 2A is that in certain cases such a dispute need not be so sponsored and it will still be deemed an industrial dispute. Supposing in this very case a labour union or a group of workmen had sponsored the case of the respondent before the reference was made, such a reference would have been valid. All that Section 2A has done is that by legislative action such a dispute is deemed to be an industrial dispute even where it is not sponsored by a labour union or a group of workmen. What a labour union or a group of workmen can do the law is competent to do. The only question for consideration in considering the validity of a reference is whether there was an industrial dispute or apprehended dispute when the reference was made. If there was an industrial dispute or an industrial dispute was apprehended, even though the facts giving rise to that dispute might have arisen before the reference was made the reference would still be valid. It is to be borne in mind that every reference would be made only sometime after the dispute has arisen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 24 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The Model ... on 22 November, 1965

The same reasoning would apply to a reference of a dispute falling under Section 2A even though the facts giving rise to that dispute arose before that section came into force. The decision in Birla Brother's case (supra) was approved by this Court in its decision in Jahiruddin v. Model Mills, Nagpur, AIR 1966 SC 907, These two decisions clearly establish that the test for the validity of a reference under Section 10 is whether there was in existence a dispute on the day the reference was made and there was no question of giving retrospective effect to the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

U.P. State Electricity Board And ... vs The Labour Court (I) U.P., Kanpur And ... on 6 October, 1983

5. On the other hand, Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of U. P. State Electricity Board and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, U. P. Kanpur and others. (1999) 1 UPLBEC 152, in support of his plea that even if no limitation has been prescribed for making reference in the Industrial Disputes Act, the normal period of limitation of 3 years for filing the suit may be held to be applicable for raising industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 32 - A Varadarajan - Full Document
1   2 Next