Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Andhra Scientific Co. Ltd. vs A. Seshagiri Rao And Anr. on 13 December, 1960
In support of his
contention, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the
observations made by the Apex Court in the case of
Andhra Scientific Company, Ltd Vs. Seshagiri Rao (A) and another
(1961 (II) LLJ 117). In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has
observed that the findings and conclusions reached by the Labour Court
that Sri.Seshagiri Rao is a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, unless the finding is shown to have been vitiated
by an error on the face of the record, High Court is not expected to
interfere with such fact finding.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Workmen Represented By Hindustan V.O. ... vs Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation ... on 10 April, 2000
In aid of
his submission, the learned senior counsel relies on the observations
made by the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Hindustan
Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils
Corporation Ltd. and Others (2000 (II LLJ 792). In the aforesaid
decision, the order passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court
had been questioned on the ground that the Division Bench ought not
have observed in its order that the application filed under Section 17B of
the Act would be considered along with the main petition. In the said
decision, the Apex Court was pleased to direct the High Court to
consider expeditiously Sec.17B application filed by the workman and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In our opinion, the said
decision of the Apex Court would not assist the learned senior counsel
for the appellant in any manner whatsoever.
1