Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Sugarbai M. Siddiq And Ors vs Ramesh S. Hankare (D) By Lrs on 27 September, 2001
Recently also, the Apex Court has considered this aspect in case of SUGARBAI M. SIDDIQ AND OTHERS V. RAMESH S. HANDKARE reported in 2001 [8] SCC pg.477, the Apex Court has held that scope of powers of High Court is concerned not with the decision of the lower court / tribunal but with its decision-making process. High Court must ascertain whether such Court or tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with a particular matter and whether the order in question is vitiated by procedural irregularity, then only High Court can interfere with, otherwise, not.
Indian Overseas Bank vs I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union & Anr on 11 April, 2000
6. After perusing the entire award, it reveals that the labour court has discussed each and every aspect and all the evidence which were led before the labour court. Cogent reason given by the labour court in support of its conclusion. The labour court has not committed any jurisdictional error which requires any interference by this Court. However, it is settled position of law that the powers of this Court are very limited while examining the legality and validity of the award passed by the labour court. The view taken by the Apex Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Another reported in 2000 SCC [ Labour and Service ] pg.471, the Apex Court has held that while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, interference with pure finding of fact and Reappreciation of the evidence is held to be impermissible. The High Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction under Artible 226. Even insufficiency of evidence or that another view is possible, it is held that no ground to interfere with the findings of the Industrial Tribunal.
The Punjab Land Development And ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. ... on 28 September, 2000
The said decision of the three Judge bench was approved by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh [1990] 3 SCC 682, in view of this settled legal position, therefore, it must be held that termination of services of the respondent workman on 29-4-1966 which was admittedly not by way of punishment clearly amounted to retrenchment attracting Section 25F of the I.D.Act."
Section 25 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976
In the case of The State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money [1976] 1 SCC 822 : {AIR 1976 SC 1111 : 1976 Lab IC 769], a three Judge Bench of this Court interpreting Section 25F read with Section 2[oo] of the I.D. Act, speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. in para 9 of the report clearly laid down that in Section 2[oo] the word `termination' for any reason whatsoever is the key word. Whatever the reason, every termination spells retrenchment. A termination takes place where a term expires either by the active step of the master or the running out of the stipulated term.