Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.26 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
"......the High Court was not justified in looking into the
order of December 2, 1952, as an appellate court, though
it would be justified in scrutinizing that order as if it was
brought before it under Article 226 of the Constitution for
issue of a writ of certiorari. The limit of the jurisdiction of
the High Court in issuing writs of certiorari was
considered by this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs.
Ahmad Ishaque 1955-I S 1104 : (s) AIR 1955 SC 233)
and the following four propositions were laid down :-
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
"11. It is necessary to clarify that the expression "judicial
acts" is not meant to refer to judicial orders of civil courts as
the matter before this Court arose out of the order of the
Election Tribunal and no direct decision of this Court,
except Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6
SCC 675, has been brought to our notice where writ of
certiorari may have been issued against an order of a judicial
court. In fact, when the question as to scope of jurisdiction
arose in subsequent decisions, it was clarified that orders of
the judicial courts stood on different footing from the quasi-
judicial orders of authorities or tribunals.
M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997
47. In our judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant is
right in submitting that nomenclature of the proceeding or
reference to a particular Article of the Constitution is not final or
conclusive. He is also right in submitting that an observation by
a Single Judge as to how he had dealt with the matter is also not
decisive. If it were so, a petition strictly falling under Article 226
simpliciter can be disposed of by a Single Judge observing that
he is exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution. Can such statement by a Single Judge take
away from the party aggrieved a right of appeal against the
judgment if otherwise the petition is under Article 226 of the
Constitution and subject to an intra court/letters patent appeal?
The reply unquestionably is in the negative [see Pepsi Foods
Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5
SCC 749]."
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Visan Kumar Shivcharan Lal on 5 December, 2008
06. The provisions of the Act came up for consideration before the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs.
Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal - (2008) 15 SCC 233.
Ashok K Jha & Ors vs Garden Silk Mills & Anr on 28 August, 2009
In the case of Ashok K. Jha and others Vs. Garden Silk
Mills Limited and another - (2009) 10 SCC 584, the workmen
challenged the transfer order before the Labour Court in terms of Bombay
Industrial Relation Act, 1946. Against an order passed by the Labour
Court, the employees filed an appeal. The Industrial Court set aside the
order of Labour Court and directed the employer to withdraw the orders of
transfer. The writ petition filed by the employer was dismissed by the
learned Single Bench. The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the
Division Bench. It is the order of the Division Bench which was
challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held as under :-
M/S. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd vs Shankarprasad on 19 July, 1999
08. The matter has been examined in respect of pari materia
provision of the Letters Patent, in a judgment reported as (1999) 6 SCC
275 - Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankarprasad. The question
under consideration arose out of an industrial dispute under the provisions
of Maharashtra (Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Maharashtra
Act"). The Court found that in view of the averments made in the writ
petition, the Court has lost sight of the object and purpose of the provisions
of the Industrial Dispute Act and the Maharashtra Act, thus, committed
serious error of law apparent on the face of the record resulting in serious
miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it is a case of invocation of jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held as
under :-
The Custodian Of Evacuee ... vs Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor, Etc on 20 February, 1961
The four
propositions laid down therein were summarized by the
Constitution Bench in Custodian of Evacuee Property
Bangalore Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc. - (1961) 3
SCR 855 as under :-