Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Section 36 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Reckitt And Colman Of India Ltd. And Ors. vs Jitendra Nath Maitra And Ors. on 27 April, 1956
Reliance has been placed on the observations made in the case of Reckitt and Colman (supra) and it was observed that although consent of a party to the dispute was one of the necessary ingredients, but it was, also, well settled that such consent need not be in a particular form. Once a leave had been granted, there has been no provision in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to recall or review the same.
Calicut Co-Operative Milk Supply Union vs Calicut Co-Operative Milk Supply ... on 31 March, 1986
In Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union v. Calicut Co- operative Milk Supply Workers' Union and Anr., reported in 1996 Lab.
Shiraz Golden Restaurant vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 16 March, 2000
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Shiraz Golden Restaurant v. State West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2000-II-LLJ-1101, held that Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, thus, laid down two conditions, that is, (a) consent of the other party to the proceeding; (b) leave of the Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, before a party could be allowed to be represented by a legal practitioner.
1