Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)
Indraprastha Power Generation Company ... vs Rama Kant Sharma And Anr. on 21 January, 2013 cites

The Bombay Union Of Journalists And ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961

9. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioner is that since there is no surviving termination of services in existence as on date, as is evident from W.P.(C) 5266/2011 & other connected matters Page 5 of 19 the amendment sought by each of the respondent workmen of their respective Statements of Claim, the direct petitions initially instituted by each of them cannot be entertained further. The respondents, according to him, should now seek a fresh reference of their individual disputes to the industrial adjudicator by the appropriate Government. He submits that the Labour Court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of the punishment as it now stands in each of these cases, as they are not either of "discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination" unless these industrial disputes are espoused by the Trade Union collectively and then referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. A dispute which is not validly espoused cannot confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court after it reaches the Labour Court. A subsequent espousal cannot confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the dispute. Reference is sought on The Bombay Union of Journalists and Ors. Vs. The Hindu, Bombay and Anr. AIR 1963 SC 318, wherein it was observed that "Subsequent withdrawal of support will not take away the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal. On the same reasoning subsequent support will not convert what was an individual dispute at the time of reference into an industrial dispute."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 331 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next