Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts ... vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, By Its ... on 11 August, 1980
8. There are two other decisions of the Madras High Court relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Both these decisions arise from the same case. The first is the decision of a learned single Judge in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts and Executive Staff Union, by its Secretary v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, by its Secretary 1980-11 L.L.J. 246. The writ petition was filed by the union whose recognition was withdrawn. The learned single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order. The Board filed a writ appeal and the decision of a Division Bench is reported in 1980-11 L.L.J. 440.
National Textile Workers' Union vs P.R. Ramakrishnan & Others on 5 May, 1983
In National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Jiamakrishnan 1983-1 L.L.J. 45, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court stated that "the audi allerum rule which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard is one of the basic principles of natural justice and (if) this rule has been held to be applicable in a quasi-judicial or even in an administrative proceeding involving adverse civil consequences". In that case, departing from the traditional view which held the field, the Supreme Court held that the workers of a company have a right to be heard in winding up proceedings under the Companies Act. The right to be heard in those circumstances is a right based on the principle of fairplay in action. The winding up order has the effect of termination of the services "of the workers and for the court to bring about such a consequence without giving an opportunity of being heard to the workers would be violation of principles of fairplay.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Companies Act, 1956
A.M. Mani vs Kerala State Electricity Board ... on 24 August, 1967
The original petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge by the judgment reported in M.A. David v. The Kerala State Electricity Board 1972-1 LLJ 44, The judgment in writ appeal is the one reported in 1973-11 LLJ 466.
The Trade Unions Act, 1926
A.C. Mukherjee And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 December, 1971
The decisions of a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Southern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Southern Railway 1970-1 LLJ 83 of a Division Bench of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in North-East Frontier Mazdoor Union v. The General Manager, North-East Frontier Railway 1970-11 LLJ 486 and of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.C Mukherjee v. Union of India 1976 C.W.N. 208 were relied on. The decision of the Madras High Court did not relate to this question. this Court declined to follow the view taken by the Assam and Nagaland High Court but preferred to follow the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. this Court pointed out that there was no statutory rule or agreement between the management and the union that the recognition once granted will not be withdrawn without giving an opportunity to the union to be heard. Even if there is an agreement unless it could be construed as part of the conditions of service, writ jurisdiction may not be invoked. In such circumstances, according to this decision, the union cannot insist that it should be heard before recognition has been withdrawn. It was also pointed out that what the management did was only to lay down a policy as to how industrial peace could be achieved, which unions should be considered as representative of particular categories of employees and which unions should be allowed to resort to collective bargaining on behalf of the said workers. It was also stressed that the arrangement under the impugned order was only for three years and it was quite possible that after three years if circumstances change and representation of the workers in particular unions also change, the board might change the decision and recognise some other unions which are then found to be more representative of the categories of workers and in that re-arrangement, this union might also be recognised for the particular type of workers it represents. In this view, the claim of the union was negatived.
Southern Railway Mazdoor Union, ... vs The General Manager, Southern Railway on 18 December, 1968
The decisions of a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Southern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Southern Railway 1970-1 LLJ 83 of a Division Bench of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in North-East Frontier Mazdoor Union v. The General Manager, North-East Frontier Railway 1970-11 LLJ 486 and of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.C Mukherjee v. Union of India 1976 C.W.N. 208 were relied on. The decision of the Madras High Court did not relate to this question. this Court declined to follow the view taken by the Assam and Nagaland High Court but preferred to follow the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. this Court pointed out that there was no statutory rule or agreement between the management and the union that the recognition once granted will not be withdrawn without giving an opportunity to the union to be heard. Even if there is an agreement unless it could be construed as part of the conditions of service, writ jurisdiction may not be invoked. In such circumstances, according to this decision, the union cannot insist that it should be heard before recognition has been withdrawn. It was also pointed out that what the management did was only to lay down a policy as to how industrial peace could be achieved, which unions should be considered as representative of particular categories of employees and which unions should be allowed to resort to collective bargaining on behalf of the said workers. It was also stressed that the arrangement under the impugned order was only for three years and it was quite possible that after three years if circumstances change and representation of the workers in particular unions also change, the board might change the decision and recognise some other unions which are then found to be more representative of the categories of workers and in that re-arrangement, this union might also be recognised for the particular type of workers it represents. In this view, the claim of the union was negatived.