Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Copyright Act, 1957
The General Manager, South Central ... vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And Ors. on 1 September, 1971
The Division Bench took the view that in the event of the petitioners succeeding in the writ petition, the persons who would be really affected would be the employees and they have not been impleaded as parties, and in their absence, no relief can be given to the petitioners therein. We are unable to follow the view taken by the Division Bench firstly because the judgment does not disclose the reasons, which weighed with the Division Bench when they took the view that all the employees who will be affected by the quashing of the notification under the Minimum Wages Act were necessary parties to the petition. Secondly, the view taken by the Division Bench seems to run counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A. V. R. Siddhanti, .
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P. S. R. Sadhanantham vs Arunachalam & Anr on 1 February, 1980
17. Some reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in P. S. R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, in which the Supreme Court was dealing with the scope of Art. 136 which, according to the Supreme Court is an unique jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and it is open to the Supreme Court to grant special leave and entertain appeals against judgments of acquittal by the High Court at the instance of private parties. That was a case in which against an acquittal of the accused in a case of murder, a brother of the murdered deceased who was neither a complainant nor a first informant Asked for leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution and leave were granted. The power of the Supreme Court under Art 136 is as the Supreme Court quoted, a unique jurisdiction and the original jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the High Court cannot be compared with that jurisdiction.
National Textile Workers' Union vs P.R. Ramakrishnan & Others on 5 May, 1983
The ratio of the said decision, in our view, cannot be of any assistance in the present case. We are dealing with a legislative enactment, which is the outcome of implementation of a policy, which is adopted by the Government. A legislative enactment is intended to give effect to some policy and implement it. Private litigants or persons who happen to be beneficiaries of such a policy enacted in the form of legislation can really have no say in a matter, which is exclusively within the domain of the Government activity. It is primarily and wholly for the Government to support its own legislation, though in case the Court wants some assistance, the Court can permit a party to intervene, but that is for the limited purpose of assistance to the Court for deciding the dispute before it. An anomalous situation may arise if a beneficiary is allowed to be joined as a party-respondent in a case where if the petition is allowed, the State may be advised not to pursue the matter further, while the party respondent by virtue of being a respondent would have a right of appeal. Thus, an anomalous situation would be created where though the State does not desire to challenge the decision of the High Court, a party respondent would insist upon canvassing the validity of an enactment.
1