Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Management Of Rain Bow Dyeing Factory ... vs Industrial Tribunal, High Court ... on 11 August, 1958
No doubt, the learned Judge referred to the decision of the Division Bench in Rainbow Dyeing Factory v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras (supra). In that case, the question arose when an order of reference was made under Section 10(1) of the Act concerning 30 managements, whether all of them could file a single writ petition. The Division Bench answered the question at page 59, "In our judgment, the interests of all the petitioners here though similar were certainly not joint". On this reasoning also a single writ petition could not lie.
Jay Engineering Works Ltd. And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 29 September, 1967
22. Jay Engineering Works v. State is a case relating to mandamus. At page 435, it was held:
Annam Adinarayana And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 21 June, 1957
21. If it is a case of Order I, Rule 1 all persons could be joined as plaintiffs in the suit provided the right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction, exists. Likewise, is the test under Order I, Rule 3. As we observed earlier, closure in this case is the foundation for the cause. But the transaction does not relate to the same set of facts. Facts do vary concerning each of the workman. This is where we think the decision in Annam Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1957) II An W.R. 345, will not apply, because that case related to discharge of two of the writ petitioners under a single order.
Management Of Western India Match ... vs Industrial Tribunal And Anr. on 12 March, 1958
Similarly, in Management, S.C. Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal 1975 I L.L.J. 470, the writ was directed against an order refusing to approve the action of the management dismissing 8 of its workers under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The action was one and the same. Therefore, the cause was also the same. Under those circumstances, with great respect, we should say that the single petition could be maintained; but not in a case as the one that we have on hand.
Section 16 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
S.A.L. Narayan Row And Anr. vs Ishwarlal Bhagwandas And Anr. on 7 May, 1965
15. Lastly, Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal , is pressed into service to advance the contention that writ proceedings partake the nature of civil proceedings and therefore the procedure under the Civil Procedure Code must be held to be applied in this case. Hence, a single writ petition is maintainable.