Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.41 seconds)
Therapeutics Chemicals Research ... vs Justice R.D. Tulpule, Presiding ... on 24 November, 1987 cites

Sadhu Ram vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 25 August, 1983

Then, in Sadhu Ram's case (above), the Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but, for that very same reason, it has to be exercised with great circumspection and it is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate Court over Tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to re-adjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those Tribunals. The Court further observed that where the circumstances indicate that the Tribunal has snatched at jurisdiction, the High Court may be justified in interfering but, where the Tribunal gets jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is therefore impossible ever to say that the Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction, it is not proper for the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workmen had raised no demand with the management and that there was no industrial dispute which could be properly referred by the Government for adjudication.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 96 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Workmen Of M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Ors vs Management Of M/S Hindusian Lever Ltd on 5 January, 1984

17. We have already mentioned that the whole case of the petitioners is that the first respondent has committed a jurisdictional error which is apparent on the face of this Award inasmuch as he misconstrued the definition of 'dock worker's in the Act and imported into it extraneous considerations from a different Act. To make good these submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had, undoubtedly, taken pains and advanced elaborate arguments. This being so, and in the light of the above judgments of the Supreme Court, it would appear that, in fact the alleged error apparent on the face of the record is not apparent at all. It comes to the surface only after elaborate and lengthy arguments. This strengthens and gives merit to the submission of Mr. Kakodkar that no writ of certiorari issues in the facts and circumstances of this case. But, assuming that the petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, it will be appropriate to observe that what the Supreme Court held in Sadhu ram's case is to be borne in mind in the present case where the Tribunal has not derived its jurisdiction by deciding a jurisdictional fact and where the jurisdiction of the Tribunal had flown directly from the reference made to it by the Central Government. This view is also supported by what the Supreme Court held in Workmen of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and others v. Management of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., to the effect that the Tribunal derives its jurisdiction by the order of reference and not on the determination of a jurisdictional fact which it must of necessity decide to acquire jurisdiction. This being the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, it would appear that Mr. Kakodkar is also right in his alternate submission that even if the petition is field under Article 226 of the Constitution, the same is not maintainable and no writ of certiorari shall issue in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 113 - D A Desai - Full Document

Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 8 October, 1985

This submission appears to us to be correct, especially while interpreting a beneficent piece of legislation as the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act is. As observed by the Supreme Court in Andhra University v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1934(4) Supreme Court Cases 509, in interpreting a beneficent piece of legislation the same should be construed liberally and not in a narrow manner, for this may defeat the object and the purpose of the Act. We also find merit in the submission of Mr. Kakodkar that the word 'connection' means 'relation' and, therefore, the work should be in relation with any of the above activities in order to bring a person within the definition of 'dock worker' in the Act. Also, there is merit in the submission of the learned Counsel that the word 'vicinity' should not be given a narrow meaning so as to be construed as being a thing very close to the port.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 32 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Beant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 1976

Similarly, in Beant Singh's case (supra), while approving the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above authority. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to substitute its own judgment for that of the authorities which are empowered to give their decisions. In such cases and that, apart form jurisdictional errors, the High Court may correct errors apparent on the face of the record, however, an error to be apparent must be one which does not take prolonged arguments to bring it to the surface.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 Next