Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.06 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 18 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd.& Anr vs General Employees Association & Ors on 23 April, 2007
The learned counsel also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. And another Vs. General Employees' Association and others reported in 2007 (5) SCC 273 for contending that the Government under Section 10(1) can pass order free from any fetters. It is only when it finds that the Government refused to make a reference of dispute, the can direct the Government to make a reference. In the present case, the Government is yet to make any decision. For this purpose, he relied upon the following passage found in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar ... vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 2 February, 1981
In such circumstances, the court may direct the Government to make a reference (Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam v. Govt. of T.N.7, V. Veerarajan v. Govt. of T.N.8 and TELCO Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar9.)"
Ram Avtar Sharma & Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 11 April, 1985
In Ram Avtar Sharma and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 1985 SC 915, the Supreme Court held that the Government under Section 10(1) exercises an administrative power. While exercising its power, it cannot reach out the conclusions on merits and a reference is a rule in such circumstances.
Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 28 April, 1989
In such circumstances, the court may direct the Government to make a reference (Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam v. Govt. of T.N.7, V. Veerarajan v. Govt. of T.N.8 and TELCO Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar9.)"
Herbertsons Limited vs Workmen Of Herbertsons Limited And Ors on 3 November, 1976
15.If a section of workers are not happy with the terms of settlement, they are entitled to seek for adjudication of their dispute as that is the only remaining method available for resolving an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. This court is not inclined to foreclose that option to the workers represented by the trade union. If ultimately any reference is made, it is always open to the management to contend before the industrial tribunal that the settlement reached by them with the INTUC union is fair and reasonable and that union represents majority of workers and that majority of workers have also accepted the terms of settlement by receiving the benefit and therefore, the tribunal should not adjudicate the dispute and must pass an award in terms of the settlement. That course is always open to them in the light of the long line of decisions of the Supreme Court starting from Herbertsons Limited Vs. Their Workmen reported in 1979 (54) FJR 249. What is their best defence before the Tribunal cannot be a ground to forestall the Government passing an appropriate order of reference under Section 10(1).
V. Veerarajan & Ors vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 14 January, 1987
In such circumstances, the court may direct the Government to make a reference (Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam v. Govt. of T.N.7, V. Veerarajan v. Govt. of T.N.8 and TELCO Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar9.)"