Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)
Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs Singhbhum Thekedar Mazdoor Sangh And ... on 15 May, 2000
cites
Section 4 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Article 233 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996
30. The decisions cited on behalf of the appellant lay down principles which, if I may say so with respect, are well established. The only question is as to their application. In the facts of the present case, I do not think, they lend any support to the appellant's case. The learned single Judge has relied upon the recent decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the context of the Contract Labour Act in the cases of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (supra), and Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh (supra), in order to highlight the salutary objects underlying the abolition of contract labour and its consequence. Instead of repeating what has been stated by the learned single Judge on the point, I would record my respectful assent with him.
State Of Gujarat vs Jamnadas G. Pabri And Ors. Etc on 3 October, 1974
The case of State of Gujarat v. Jamnadasjee, related to postponement of reconstitution of Panchayats. Section 303-A of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or the Rules or bye-laws made thereunder, if at any time, the State Government is satisfied that a situation exists by reason of disturbance in the whole or any part of the State of Gujarat whereunder it was not possible or expedient to hold election for the re-constitution of Panchayats on the expiry of its term, the State Government could by notification in the official Gazette, make a declaration to that effect. Under Sub-section (2), such notification was to remain in force for a period not exceeding six months as specified therein; however, if the State Government be of the opinion that it was necessary to do so, it could by order and for reasons to be mentioned therein, extend, from time to time, the period so specified. But, in any case, the notification could not remain in force for more than a year in the aggregate. Upon analysis of the provisions, the Supreme Court held that a declaration referred to in Section 302(1) depends upon fulfilment of two requirements (i) that a situation existed by reason of disturbance in the whole or any part of the State, and (ii) the satisfaction of the State Government that it was not expedient to hold election for reconstitution of a Panchayat on the expiry of its term. The Court held that the first requirement was an objective fact but, the second was an opinion being inference drawn from that fact. The first requirement, if disputed, must be established objectively as a condition precedent to the exercise of the power, the second was the matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government and not justiciable.
The Kerala State Electricity Board, ... vs Suresh Kumar on 6 November, 1985
30. The decisions cited on behalf of the appellant lay down principles which, if I may say so with respect, are well established. The only question is as to their application. In the facts of the present case, I do not think, they lend any support to the appellant's case. The learned single Judge has relied upon the recent decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the context of the Contract Labour Act in the cases of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (supra), and Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh (supra), in order to highlight the salutary objects underlying the abolition of contract labour and its consequence. Instead of repeating what has been stated by the learned single Judge on the point, I would record my respectful assent with him.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rohtas Industries Ltd vs S.D. Agarwal & Anr on 16 December, 1968
29. The decisions in Rohtas Industries v. S.D. Agarwal and Ors. 1969 AIR SC 707 : 1969 (1) SCC 325 and Slate of Gujarat v. Jamuna Das G. Pabri and Ors., AIR 1,974 SC 2233 : 1975 (1) SCC 138, were cited in support of the contention that the existence of the condition precedent in exercise of power is subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The principle is unexceptionable but the decisions are of little help as they were rendered on different facts and circumstances. The former case related to appointment of Inspector to investigate, the Company's affairs under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act Section 237(b) of the Companies Act provides, "If in the opinion of the Central Government, there are circumstances suggesting...". The Court held that the condition precedent for the exercise of power is the opinion of the Government and not the existence of the circumstances. I fail to understand how the decision can be of any help to the appellant. As a matter of fact, having regard to the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour Act, it may be open to a principal employer to contend that the factors specified therein, which are required to be taken into account by the State Government, were not taken into account and therefore, exercise of power is bad in law. So far as the existence of the opinion of the Advisory Board is concerned, though it was a fractured opinion of the Board/Committee and not unanimous, as it normally should have been; I do not think that such condition precedent was absent and, therefore, the Government could not exercise the power under Section 10(1).