Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)
The National Horticultural vs The Government Of India on 2 November, 2012 cites

I.C.I. India Ltd. & Anr vs The Second Labour Court And Anr on 4 August, 2009

16. This Court in W.P.(MD) No.5239 of 2010 decided on 12/7/2010 did not follow the judgment of the Honourable Allahabad High Court in I.C.I INDIA LTD VS. LABOUR COURT (IV) AND ANOTHER and the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge has been approved by the Division Bench as the writ appeal filed against the judgment of the Honourable Single Judge was dismissed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - G C Gupta - Full Document

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen on 9 September, 1976

Section 36 is not exhaustive but only supplemental to any other lawful mode of representation of parties. The parties, however, will have to conform to the conditions laid down in Section 36(4) in the matter of representation by legal practitioners. Both the consent of the opposite party and the leave of the tribunal will have to be secured to enable a party to seek representation before the tribunal through a legal practitioner qua legal practitioner. This is the clear significance of Section 36(4) of the Act. If, however, a legal practitioner is appointed as an officer of a company or corporation and is in their pay and under their control and is not a practising advocate the fact that he was earlier a legal practitioner or has a legal degree will not stand in the way of the company or the corporation being represented by him. Similarly if a legal practitioner is an officer of an association of employers or of a federation of such associations, there is nothing in Section 36(4) to prevent him from appearing before the tribunal under the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act. Again, an office-bearer of a trade union or a member of its executive, even though he is a legal practitioner, will be entitled to represent the workmen before the tribunal under Section 36(1) in the former capacity. The legal practitioner in the above two cases will appear in the capacity of an officer of the association in the case of an employer and in the capacity of an office-bearer of the union in the case of workmen and not in the capacity of a legal practitioner. The fact that a person is a legal practitioner will not affect the position if the qualifications specified in Section 36(1) and Section 36(2) are fulfilled by him. It must be made clear that there is no scope for enquiry by the tribunal into the motive for appointment of such legal practitioners as office-bearers of the trade unions or as officers of the employers' associations. When law provides for a requisite qualification for exercising a right, fulfilment of the qualification in a given case will entitle the party to be represented before the tribunal by such a person with that qualification. How and under what circumstances these qualifications have been obtained will not be relevant matters for consideration by the tribunal in considering an application for representation under Section 36(1) and Section 36(2) of the Act. Once the qualifications under Section 36(1) and Section 36(2) are fulfilled prior to appearance before tribunals, there is no need under the law to pursue the matter in order to find out whether the appointments are in circumvention of Section 36(4) of the Act. Motive of the appointment cannot be made an issue before the tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 180 - P K Goswami - Full Document

The Management, Hindustan Motors Earth ... vs The Presiding Officer, Principal ... on 20 January, 2007

10. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the MANAGEMENT, HINDUSTAN MOTORS EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT DIVISION LTD., CHENNAI CAR PLANT, THIRUVALLOORE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS reported in 2007 (1) LLN - 449, wherein liberty was granted to the Management to engage a legal practitioner of their own choice by holding that as the workmen had not objected to engagement of a counsel. Therefore, he is deemed to have given up his right under Section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 19 - K Chandru - Full Document
1   2 Next