Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.42 seconds)Coir Board, Ernakulam Cochin & Anr vs Indira Devi P.S. & Ors on 4 March, 1992
We do no think that such a sweeping tests was contemplated by the
Industrial Disputes Act, nor do we think that every organization which does
useful service and employs people can be labelled as industry. We,
therefore, direct that the matter be placed before the Hon. Chief Justice
of India to consider whether a larger Bench should be constituted to
reconsider the decision of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board.''
When the matter was listed before a three judge Bench, in the case of Coir
Board v. Indira Devi, [2000] 1 SCC 224 the request for constituting a
larger Bench for reconsideration of the judgment in the Bangalore Water
case was refused both on the ground that the Industrial Disputes Act has
undergone an amendment and that the matter does not deserve to be referred
to a larger Bench as the decision of seven judges in Bangalore Water case
is binding on Benches of this Court of less than seven judges.
Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978
The Bench of three judges in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests v.
Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (supra) based on the decision of Bangalore Water
case came to the conclusion that `Social Forestry Department' is covered by
the definition of `industry' whereas the two judges Bench decision in State
of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (supra) took a different view.
Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, Supreme ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988
It is
submitted that even though the definition in the Industrial Disputes Act
has been amended in 1982, it has not been brought into force for more than
23 years and the reasons disclosed to the Court, when the enforcement of
the Amendment Act was sought in the case of Altemesh Rein v. Union of
India, [1988] 4 SCC 54, is a sound justification. The stand of the union of
India was that for the category of industries excluded in the amended
definition no alternative Industrial Disputes Resolution forums could be
created. For the aforesaid reason, the Central Government did not enforce
the provisions of the Amendment Act which provided a new and restrictive
definition of `industry'.
State 0F Bombay & Others vs The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha & Others on 29 January, 1960
``As we have repeatedly emphasized, in dealing with industrial matters,
industrial adjudication should refrain from enunciating any general
principles or adopting any doctrinaire considerations. It is desirable that
industrial adjudication should deal with problems as and when they arise
and confine its decisions to the points which strictly arise on the
pleadings between the parties. .....''
We conclude agreeing with the conclusion of the hon'ble judges in the case
of Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. (supra):-
Chief Conservator Of Forests And ... vs Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, Etc. Etc. on 6 December, 1995
The Bench of three judges in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests v.
Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (supra) based on the decision of Bangalore Water
case came to the conclusion that `Social Forestry Department' is covered by
the definition of `industry' whereas the two judges Bench decision in State
of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (supra) took a different view.
State Of Gujarat And Ors. vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar on 31 January, 2001
The Bench of three judges in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests v.
Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (supra) based on the decision of Bangalore Water
case came to the conclusion that `Social Forestry Department' is covered by
the definition of `industry' whereas the two judges Bench decision in State
of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (supra) took a different view.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1996
The State Of Bihar vs Rat Bahadur Hurdut Roy-Mott Lall Jute ... on 26 November, 1959
Sri Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s National Remote
Sensing Agency, which is an agency constructed by the Government in
discharge of it sovereign functions dealing with Defence, Research, Atomic
Energy and Space falling in the excluded category in Clause (6) of the
amended definition of `industry' in Section 2(j), relies on the following
decisions in support of his submission that where the unamended definition
in the Act is ambigious and has been interpreted by the court not
exhaustively but tentatively until the law is amended, the amendment
actually brought into the statute can be looked at for construction of the
unamended provisions. K. Brandy v. England Revenue Commissioner, (1921) 2
Kings Bench 403 followed in Yogender Nath Naskar v. CIT, [1969] 3 SCR 742
referred to and relied in Kajri Lal Agarwal v. UOI, AIR (1966) SC 1538-41;
State of Bihar v. SK Roy, AIR (1966) SC 1995 at 1998 (para 6) and Thiru
Manickam and Co. v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR (1977) SC 518 at para 10.