Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
K.N. Padmanabha Ayyar vs State Of Madras And Two Ors. on 17 December, 1953 cites

Indian Metal And Metallurgical ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Madras And Anr. on 3 November, 1951

In Letters Patent Appeal No. 226 of 1952, the learned Chief Justice has explained the scope of the decision in Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras (1952) I M.L.J. 481 : 1952 I L.L.J. 364. He was of opinion that if an employer does not wish to discontinue the business but only to close down the place of business temporarily then the tribunal can go into the question whether such closure is bona fide and for proper reasons or whether it was with the object of victimizing the workmen and coercing them to accept his own terms. In view of this explanation what I have to find is whether the closing down was for purpose of victimization. Even in the first notice, dated 2 May 1952, the petitioner has stated that owing to the slump in the business and high cost of foodstuffs the management has been incurring heavy losses in the business; and moreover from the report of the commissioner it is clear that the business has been closed for a long time. If that is so, it cannot be said that the management has closed down the business with a view to victimizing the workmen and coercing them to accept their own terms. In the view which I take that at the time the closing down took place there was no conciliation proceeding pending and that the closing down was perfectly bona fide and probably due to the obstructionist tactics adopted by the workmen it cannot be said that there was any mala fides in the closing down. In these circumstances the order of the Government referring the matter to an industrial tribunal at a time when no dispute could have existed is without jurisdiction and is quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs in this application including the commissioner's fee and expenses, The advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 100.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Dindigal Skin Merchants' Association ... vs The Industrial Tribunal, Madurai And ... on 21 July, 1952

10. At another place the learned Judges say that if a citizen has a fundamental right to carry on business, it follows that he must be at liberty not to carry it on if he so chooses. This decision has been commented upon and followed by Subba Rao, J., in Dindigul Skin Merchants Association v. Industrial Tribunal (1952-53) F.J.R. 413 : 1952 II L.L.J. 584.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1