Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Karnani Properties Ltd vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 22 August, 1990
20. The facts and activities of the Haryana Urban Development Authority are pari materia with the facts and activities of the company which was under consideration in Karnani Properties Ltd v. State of West Bengal and Ors., 1990 (5) S.L.R 61. We cannot add anything more and the tests as stated above squarely cove- the facts of the present case.
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
British India Steam Navigation Co. vs Secretary Of State For India on 8 September, 1910
In the present day egalitarian society and the fast changing social norms particularly keeping in view the executive functions of the State delegated to various corporations and the definition of sovereign as provided by Hibbert in his book on Jurisprudence, at page 58, "the term 'sovereign' means a political superier who is not subject to any other political and further the observations made in the case Peninsular and Oriental Stream Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India in Council, 5 Bombay HCR 1 where in Chief Justice Gray.
Town Municipal Council, Athani vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli ... on 20 March, 1969
25. The grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that industrial dispute cannot be referred to or decided by the Tribunal, if the same was raised after a lapse of three years from the date of its accrual which is the cause of action, it was argued that the application for reference would be governed by Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act. Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer Labour Court Hubli AIR 1969 SC 1335 had settled the question posed. It was observed that the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court to whom the application is referred under the Act are not the Courts. Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court are not in any way governed by the Court of Civil Procedure. As a natural corollary applicability of Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act cannot be accepted.
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Gopal Bhiva & Ors on 9 May, 1963
Similarly, it was so observed by a catena of authorities i. e. The Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gapal Bhiva, A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 752 Chief Mining Engineer, M/s East India Coal Co. Ltd., Bararee Colliery Dhanbads.v Rameshwar A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 218 Jai Bhagwan v. Management of Ambala Central Co-operative Bank, 1983 (3) S. L. R. 544 Jacob Thomas v. Kerala Public Service Commission,1990 (1) S. L. R 360, Jai Bhagwan v. Management of the Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Management of the State Bank of Hyderabad v. Vasudev Anant Bhide A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 196 and The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T. P. Kanhaliumann., A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 282