Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)The Trade Unions Act, 1926
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Jalan Trading Co. (Private Ltd.) vs Mill Mazdoor Union(With Connected ... on 5 August, 1966
"17. A word about the validity of Section 42 of the A.P. Act. Section 37
of the Payment of Bonus Act conferred a similar power upon the
Central Government; it further declared that any such order would
be final. It was struck down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, as amounting to
excessive delegation of legislative power.
Section 34 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974
The decisions in Gammon India (supra) and Bengal Iron Corpn.
(supra) elaborate on the scope of a 'removal of difficulties clause' and
reiterate the necessity of such a clause when a new law is enacted.
Furthermore, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P.
2026:KER:14042
W.P (C) No.824/2026 -11-
No.47257/2025 and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C)
No.18325/2025 have taken cognizance of the subsequent notifications and
have determined that there is no ground for interference with those
notifications. Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge that Section 103 of the
2020 Code incorporates inherent safeguards. The authority to issue an order
under this provision is subject to a three-year limitation. Additionally, the
provision stipulates that every order "made under this section shall be laid
before each House of Parliament". In the celebrated work 'Principles of
Statutory Interpretation, G.P Singh, 13th Edition, 2012, (at page
1053) it has been observed:
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
State Of West Bengal vs Anindya Sundar Das on 11 October, 2022
In Anindya Sundar Das and
others (supra), it was held that, under the guise of exercising the power to
remove difficulties, the Government cannot sidestep statutory provisions and
cannot remove all obstacles in its path that arise due to statutory restrictions.
However, one must be conscious of the fact that permitting the existing
adjudicatory mechanisms and the statutory authorities to continue till the
new adjudicatory mechanisms are put in place cannot be said to be an
instance of sidestepping the provisions of the 2020 Code or the removal of
obstacles by the Government to get over statutory restrictions. Holding that in
respect of any pending proceedings, the adjudicatory bodies under the
repealed enactments continue to have jurisdiction presents no difficulty.
Garikapatti Veeraya vs N. Subbiah Choudhury on 1 February, 1957
In
Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, AIR 1957 SC 540, it
was held: