Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.38 seconds)
The Staff Superintendent Of State Bank ... vs The Presiding Officer And Ors. on 14 August, 1984
cites
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Binny Ltd vs Their Workmen on 15 February, 1972
(13) Similar view was taken in a subsequent case of Binny Limitea V. Their.workmen wherein it was held that 'the mere fact that on two previous occasions .Government had taken the view that no reference was called for does 'not entitle us to conclude that there could' be no cause for reference in 1966.
State Of Madras vs C. P. Sarathy And Another on 5 December, 1952
(37) The only requirement for the government to make a reference is that it should satisfy that an industrial dispute exists within the meaning of the Act, but beyond that no obligation can be held to lie on the Government to ascertain the particulars of the dispute before making a reference under section 10. (Sec State of Madras V. C. P. Sarathy; Air 1953 Sc para 51). I have no doubt that if after the refusal order of 1-8-1972 the workman had invoked this court's jurisdiction it would have been impossible to refuse him the relief and a mandamus would have had to issue directing the government to reconsider the matter because it is well established that if in refusing to make a reference the government has acted on irrelevant and extraneous consideration a writ of mandamus can issue by the High Court, and mandamus can issue to the Government to reconsider the question of making a reference and to make the same if circumstances so warrant.'
Avon Services (Production Agencies) ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Haryana ... on 6 October, 1978
(38) Now in the present case the earlier order of 1-8-1972 refusing to refer the matter was not based on the finding that there was no industrial dispute. No other requirement of expediency or other relevant considerations were indicated to show that it was not a fit case for making a reference. If after going through the detailed representations of the workman the Government has ultimately seen the wisdom and expediency of making a reference how can it be said that it has been done without any material on record or without application of mind. "The only requirement for taking action under Section 10(1) is that there must be some material before the Government which will enable the appropriate government to form an opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Refusal to make a reference does not tantamount to saying that the dispute if at all existed stands resolved.' (Vide Avon's Production Agencies V. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana; ). The industrial dispute continued to exist. No circumstances warranted it to refuse to make the reference. On what principle of fair play or equity can it be argued that the impugned order of reference dated 16-8-1974 and the award, a result of about 10 years' labour should be quashed on no other ground except the irrelevant one that the file from the Government record has not been made available to the court. I could understand that if there was no material placed by the workman before the court to show the circumstances which might have persuaded the Government
THE Presiding Officer & Others then it would have been a different case. But that is not the position in the present case. Here the representations made by the workman, the consideration at the Government level have been produced. The management does not dispute the authenticity of his material. Relevance of these documents is not challenged. Applicability of section 11-A to the present proceedings is also accepted. Are these not relevant facts which could legitimately have persuaded the government to make the reference. It was not even suggested that the termination of service of the workman was not an industrial dispute, or that it had ceased to exist to be an industrial dispute in the sense that there has been a subsequent settlement ?
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Of Bombay vs K. P. Krishnan And Others. (And ... on 18 April, 1960
(See State of Bombay V. K. P. Krishnan ; ).
The Bombay Union Of Journalists And ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961
See Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay; , head note (a).
G. Muthukrishnan vs The Administrative Manager, New ... on 18 October, 1979
(58) Though I might have been inclined to lean towards the more liberal approach of applying the principles of natural Justice recently expressed in the decisions of the Madras Karnataka, Calcutta and Punjab & Haryana High Courts in G. Muthukrishnan Vs. Administrative Manager New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., Pondicherry and other 1980(1) Llj 215, "Indian Telephones Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & others" 1978 (1) Llj 544, "American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Union of India and others" 1979 (II) Llj 22(33) and M|s. Escorts Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana & others" 1983 Lab.