Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.53 seconds)Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Raj. State Road Transport Corp., & Anr vs Satya Prakash & Anr on 22 November, 2013
However, the legal position being clear in view of the
decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & another
[supra], it is not necessary for this Court to further consider as to
whether grant of interim relief would be incidental to the proceedings
under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. For that reason, it is not found
necessary to refer to the applicability of the other decisions relied upon
by the learned counsel for the parties.
Amruta Babaji Mozar vs Kondabai, Deceased By Her Heirs Babai ... on 15 June, 1994
He referred to the
judgment in Amruta Babaji Mozar Vs. Kondabai Babaji Mozar &
another [1994 Mh.L.J. 1663] to urge that when the High Court
considers a decision of the Supreme Court and puts its own gloss
thereon, that gloss was binding on all the Courts in the State until it
was outweighed by a later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or of
the High Court.
Super Cassetts Industries Ltd vs Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd on 3 May, 2012
Reference was also made to the decision in Super
Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Music Brodcast Pvt. Ltd. [(2012) 5
SCC 488].
The Works Manager, Bihar State ... vs Sri C.P. Singh And Ors., Etc. on 22 March, 1972
Without prejudice, it was submitted by relying upon the
decision in The Works Manager, Bihar State Superphosphate
Factory, Sindri Vs. SRI C. P. Singh & others, etc. [(1973) 3 SCC
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:05:08 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
53
858] that if any amounts are directed to be paid to the employees,
same should be subject to interests of the employer being protected
and calling upon the employees to furnish security in that regard. It
was, thus, submitted that considering the aforesaid law, there was no
question of any interim reinstatement being granted in proceedings
under Section 33A of the Act of 1947, especially in view of the law that
breach of provisions of Section 33 would not result in automatic
reinstatement of the employees. It was, thus, submitted that the
impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002
Placing reliance
on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Jaipur Zila Sahakari
Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & others
[ (2002) 2 SCC 244], it was urged that when no application seeking
approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 is made or such
application having been made is withdrawn, it would be a clear case of
contravention of the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. In
the face of such breach by the employer, it could not be said that the
Industrial Tribunal was powerless to order reinstatement by way of
interim relief. It was then submitted that the provisions of Section 10
of the Act of 1947 and requirements thereof could not be imported in
proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. Such interpretation
would defeat the rights of the employees and the protection intended
to be conferred by Section 33 (2) (b) would become illusory. The
employee would have to remain out of service for an indefinite period
which would be against the intention of the Legislature. The learned
counsel then submitted that the decisions sought to be relied by the
learned Senior Counsel for the employer were clearly distinguishable
and were not applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
The Management Of Hotel Imperial, New ... vs Hotel Workers' Union on 21 May, 1959
Incidentally, in Delhi
Cloth & General Mills Co. [supra], which was authored by K. N.
Wanchoo, J. who had also authored the decision in Hotel Imperial
[supra], it has been observed in clear terms that grant of relief of
reinstatement by way of interim relief while considering a complaint
under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 would amount to giving the
employee the very relief which he could get only if on a trial of the
complaint, the employer failed to justify the order of dismissal.
Central Board Of Dawoodi Bohra ... vs State Of Maharashtra&Anr on 17 December, 2004
Reference was also made to the decision in Sarva
Shramik Sanghatana (KV), Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra &
others [ (2008) 1 SCC 494] on the effect of withdrawing the
applications seeking approval, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra
Community & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & another
[ (2005) 2 SCC 673] on the effect of binding precedent as well as the
decisions in Western India Automobile Association Vs. The
Industrial Tribunal, Bombay & others [AIR 1949 Federal Court 111]
and Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. &
another [ (1979) 3 SCC 762]. It was, thus, submitted that besides
maintaining the direction to reinstate the employees, a direction to pay
hundred per cent wages deserves to be issued.