Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.39 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010
In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the
respondents/workmen relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation, reported in [2010 (3) SCC 192] and the Court held as follows:
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
In
our opinion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside only
on the ground that while interfering with the award of the
Labour Court, the learned Single Judge did not keep in view
the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of
jurisdiction by the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227
of the Constitution —Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [AIR
1964 SC 477] and Surya Dev Rai v. Chander Rai [(2003) 6
SCC 675].”
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
In
our opinion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside only
on the ground that while interfering with the award of the
Labour Court, the learned Single Judge did not keep in view
the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of
jurisdiction by the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227
of the Constitution —Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [AIR
1964 SC 477] and Surya Dev Rai v. Chander Rai [(2003) 6
SCC 675].”
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010
In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in
[2010-I-LLJ-841 (SC)], the Court held as follows: