Advanced Search Results

Sheela Vs. the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Labour and Industrial

PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CWP No.5336 of 2012 Sheela ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hisar, District Hisar and another ....Respondents 2. CWP No.5337 of 2012 Bhagat Ram ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding

Engine Valves Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Madras and Another

Court : Chennai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A

Reported in : (1991)ILLJ372Mad

Labour Court, the necessary approval was also obtained on 21st January, 1976. Thereupon, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute, challenging his non-employment and though initially the Government declined to refer, later, on reconsideration, in G.O. Ms. … of 1981, dismissing Writ Petition No. 2407 of 1981 filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Labour Court, dated 17th December, 1980 in I.D. No. 358 of 1977. 2. The appellant company has a factory

Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union and Anr. Vs. Chris ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 9-A, 10, 11-A, 12 and 33; Constitution of India - Articles 13(2), 19, 25(1), 25(2), 30, 30(1), 31(1), 41, 42, 43, 136 and 226

Reported in : AIR1988SC37; JT1987(4)SC129; 1988LabIC225; (1988)ILLJ263SC; 1987(2)SCALE798; (1987)4SCC691; [1988]1SCR546

above three persons, the Government of Madras by its order dt. 19-2-1979 referred the following question to the Labour Court for adjudication:Whether the non-employment of Thiruvalargal Gilbert Samuel, M. Devadoss and Smt. Yesudial is justified, and if … determination in this appeal by special leave is whether Sections 9-A, 10, 11-A, 12 and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are applicable to educational institutions established and administered by

Management of Essorpe Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cou ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : (1998)IILLJ1204Mad

ORDERSathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 22 of 1987 dated May9,1991, the Management has filed the above writ petition.2. The … herein was involving in acts of misconduct falling within the mischief of Standing Order No. 35, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Running of a canteen in the petitioner Mill is a statutory duty. Accordingly

Basu Deba Das Vs. M.R. Bhope and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11-A

Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR90; (1993)IILLJ1022Bom

the petitioner was dismissed from service. 6. Taking exception to the order of dismissal the petitioner raised on industrial dispute. By an order passed on July 16, 1982 the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, being … application for review and the Part-II Award dated September 27, 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court in Reference (I.D.A) No. 503 of 1982. 2. By the Award the action of the second respondent

South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. V.G. Krishnakumar and anr.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A; Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 - Sections 107A; Constitution of India - Articles 30(1) and 226

Reported in : (2006)IILLJ661Ker

17996/1997 by which the learned single Judge declined to interfere with Exhibit P-19 award of the Central Government Labour Court, Ernakulam, by which the Labour Court interfered with the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the … S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The management in an Industrial dispute is the appellant before us. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge in

The Management of Essorpe Mills Private Limited Vs. the Presiding Offi ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ77

ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 22 of 1987 dated 9.5.1991, the Management has filed the above writ petition.2. The … herein was involving in acts of misconduct falling within the mischief of Standing Order No. 35, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Running of a canteen in the petitioner Mill is a statutory duty. Accordingly

Rajasthan Medical and Sales Representatives Union and ors. Vs. Industr ...

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1976 - Sections 2, 6 and 6(2); Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2

Reported in : [2000(87)FLR563]; (2001)ILLJ91Raj; 2000(4)WLC473

with the private respondents. Their services were terminated with the result that the reference was made to the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on the legality, justification or propriety of the order of termination. The

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Barrister Prasad and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A

Reported in : (1995)IILLJ536Bom

It will interfere (a) where there is want of good faith; (b) when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice; (c) when the management has been guilty of the basic error or violation of the principles of … a dispute in regard to his dismissal which was referred by the Central Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Bombay. Before the Tribunal, several points were raised. By award part-I passed on 17.9.1990,

Vice Chancellor Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidy ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : ConstitutionService

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 16, 19 and 226; Constitution of India (42 Amendment) Act, 1976; Municipal Act - Sections 271

Reported in : [2006(111)FLR440]

of the University and a reply to that effect was also filed by respondent No. 2 but the Labour court has illegally given an award dated 30.5.1998 with a direction that respondent No. 2 will be treated … particular project. It is further respectfully submitted that the University is not an industry as defined in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Respondent No. 2 was appointed on daily wage basis by the University on 1.7.1980 for a