Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.91 seconds)
Maheshwari Gas Services vs Bhure Lal on 11 September, 2012 cites

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen on 9 September, 1976

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order in view of the law laid down by WP(C) No. 2116/2010 Page 2 of 5 the Supreme Court in Pradip Port Trust vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1977 SC 36; and Siemens Limited vs. K.K. Gupta & Anr. 125 (2005) DLT 85 and in view of the bar under Section 36(3) of the ID Act, the Petitioner could not be represented through an Advocate. The contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent‟s claim is at best of being a member of the federation which does not fall within the ambit of Section 36(1)(c) of the ID Act is misconceived. Reliance is placed on the definition of trade union under Section 2(h) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 where a trade union includes any federation of two or more trade unions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 180 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Siemens Limited vs K.K. Gupta And Anr. on 21 October, 2005

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order in view of the law laid down by WP(C) No. 2116/2010 Page 2 of 5 the Supreme Court in Pradip Port Trust vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1977 SC 36; and Siemens Limited vs. K.K. Gupta & Anr. 125 (2005) DLT 85 and in view of the bar under Section 36(3) of the ID Act, the Petitioner could not be represented through an Advocate. The contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent‟s claim is at best of being a member of the federation which does not fall within the ambit of Section 36(1)(c) of the ID Act is misconceived. Reliance is placed on the definition of trade union under Section 2(h) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 where a trade union includes any federation of two or more trade unions.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 15 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1