Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
In my view, having regard to the origin of the Sastry Award as a judgment of a tribunal and its adoption throughout by means of Bi-partite statutory Settlement the principles enunciated in the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Brojo Nath , will have no application to the case on hand.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Spencer And Co. Ltd., Madras vs B. Vajravelu And Anr. on 26 April, 1989
Spencer and Company Ltd. v. B. Vajravelu (1989) 2 L.W. 53 (Summary of Cases), equally has no application having regard to the specific finding therein that the order ex facie showed adverse imputation against the employees for misconduct which is not and could not be said to be the case herein.
Section 10 in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
The Chartered Bank, Bombay vs The Chartered Bank Employees' Union on 4 April, 1960
In Chartered Bank v. Chartered Bank Employees' Union , the Apex Court was of the view that such questions have to be left to the adjudication of the competent tribunal or court constituted for the purpose. In my view the petitioner if he so desires to challenge the order on such factual grounds claims should have recourse only to the adjudicative machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and cannot raise such issues in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
For the respondents, the Supreme Court decision in Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India , was relied upon to contend that when a particular decision has become final and binding between the parties, they would always be bound by the said decision and it cannot be set at naught on the ground that such decision was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.