Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Section 25O in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Management Of Addisons Paints And ... vs Workmen, Represented By The Secretary ... on 12 December, 2000
The Bareilly Electricity Supply Co., Ltd., v. Sirajuddin and Anr. reported in 1960 F.LR. 243, S.K. Maini v. Corona Sahu Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1994 II LLJ 1153 and Management of Addisons Paints and Chemicals Ltd. v. Workmen, represented by the Secretary (A. P. and C) Assistants Association and Anr. reported in 2001 1 CLR 587. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that there is any change in the nature of duties on account of the transfer of the respondent to Bombay and the respondent has illegally refused to join his duties at Bombay. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent
that the findings arrived at by the Industrial Court, on analysis of the entire evidence, apparently disclose that the respondent is a workman and once it is established that the party to the proceeding is a workman, the nature of the work assumes no importance for the purpose of transfer. Besides, the petitioner has not proved that the transfer has been for a justifiable reason and mere statement in the order of transfer that it is for administrative exigency by itself is not sufficient to show that the transfer has really been for administrative exigencies when the petitioner has failed to establish the same by leading necessary evidence in that regard. In the absence of any justifiable reason being shown for transfer and that there being change in the nature of the work, as is apparent from the findings arrived at by the tribunal that there is no factory at Bombay and admittedly, there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, it is a clear case of adopting unfair labour practice in terms of Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. The transfer having been made only to pressurize the respondent to withdraw with the complaint (ULP) No. 124/1999 and complaint (ULP) No, 145/2000 filed by him against the petitioner, the acts on the part of the petitioner disclose unfair labour practices as are contemplated under Item No. 5 of Schedule IV of the said Act. It is further contention that the respondent is the sole person chosen for transfer to Bombay and none other employee of the petitioner has been transferred and that shows favouritism to others as against the revengeful attitude towards the respondent and hence, Item No. 3 of Schedule IV of the said Act is attracted.
S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading Limited ... on 3 April, 1986
Drawing attention to the above ruling of the Apex Court, it was sought to be contended by the learned Advocate for the respondent that there is a clear violation of Section 9 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the petitioner inasmuch as, no notice regarding the change in the conditions of service of the respondent was given as is otherwise required under the said provision of the law and, therefore, without complying the said mandatory provision of law, the petitioner having proceeded to transfer the respondent resulting in change of nature of the work, amounts to being guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act as is otherwise held by the Apex Court in S. G. Chemical's case in relation to non-compliance of mandatory provision of Sub-section (6) of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
6. The Apex Court, in Syed Yakoob's case, has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising the same is not entitled to act as appellate Court and this limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in Writ proceedings and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. It is further held that a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals and these are the cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. It is also held that a writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. In catena of decisions given by the Apex Court and this Court subsequently, it has been held that passing an order without assigning proper reason even by the Administrative authority apart from
the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
Shama Prashant Raje vs Ganpatrao & Ors on 27 September, 2000
9. Perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the Industrial Court, after going through the record, has found that the respondent was working in F.G.S. Department and his designation was that of an operator, that the respondent was sent on deputation from Chikalthana to Waluj plant also as an operator and that, at no point of time the respondent was designated as supervisor and that, the work of operator is not available at Mumbai office and at Mumbai, it is the Head Office of the petitioner where operator's work is not available and that, therefore, the action of transfer is bad in law. Moreover, and as rightly
submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent, the impugned judgment nowhere discloses the analysis of the evidence so as to arrive at the findings which are arrived at by the Industrial Court and in that regard, therefore, the petitioner is justified in contending non application of mind by the Industrial Court while deciding the matter. While being fully conscious of the limitations in the matter of writ jurisdiction while considering the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the same time, failure on the part of the inferior Court to adopt the correct procedure in the matter of assessment of evidence, cannot be allowed to result in injustice to the parties, and therefore, as held by the Apex Court in the matter of Shama Prashant Raje v. Ganpatrao and Ors. reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 206 in such a case, nothing prevents the Court from looking into the evidence and even to reappreciate the same in the interest of justice. In fact, the respondent himself found it difficult to justify the impugned judgment without referring to the evidence on record. Apparently, because the Industrial Court has not taken into consideration even the material evidence on record.
Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963
5. The impugned order is sought to be challenged on various grounds including the ground of non application of mind, deviation from the settled principles of law relating to transfer, as well as unwarranted observations in relation to the subject matter of complaint (ULP) No. 124/1999 and 145/2000 pending before the Industrial Court which are yet to be disposed of. According to the petitioner, there are no analysis of the evidence on record in proper perspective and the findings have been arrived at without any material on record besides, some of them being totally contrary to the evidence led by the parties. The contentions are sought to be made good by referring to the decisions in the matter of Canara Banking Corporation Ltd. v. U. Vittal reported in 1963(7) F.L.R. 184, Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. Its workman reported in 1966(1) L.L.J. 440.