Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: industrial disputes act 1947 section 37 protection of action taken under the act Page 3 of about 9,870 results (0.521 seconds)

inside Cpcl Campus Vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited

Court : Chennai

..... insofar as the workers union are concerned, settlement under section 12(3) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 was arrived at on 7.8.1992 and 24.9.1996 and stated that the working hours would be as per the mutually agreed terms of settlement and insofar as the officers are concerned, the respondent is unilaterally trying to increase the working hours, which was not the assurance given before the ministry of petroleum, government of india. 6. ..... the increase of working hours and reduction of weekly holidays is alteration of the service condition, which can be altered with discussion/negotiation, though there is no statutory bar like section 9a of the industrial disputes act, 1947. ..... the respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending as follows: (i) respondent is a public sector undertaking, registered under the companies act, 1956 and incorporated in the year 1965 and it is doing business of refining crude oil. ..... the proposed action of the government, according to the learned counsel, is in violation of international labour organisation's decision taken in the convention of the year 1935, which suggested to reduce the working hours of all forms of employment with 40 hours per week. ..... article 39a of the constitution of india also directs that health and strength of the workers, men and women are to be protected. .....

Steel Plant Employees Union, Salem, Represented by Its General Secreta ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2003)ILLJ189Mad; (2002)2MLJ271

..... further, the existing policy of allotment of quarters to the employees of the salem steel plant is part of their service conditions and is protected by section 9-a of the industrial disputes act, 1947. ..... learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:-(i) the decision of the respondents to give away the houses/flats in the salem steel plant township on long term lease is unreasonable, unjust and violative of the rights of the petitioner employees for housing in the township; (ii) the right to housing has been protected under the agreement dated 1-8-2001 between the management and the workmen and is therefore a protected condition of service under section 9-a read with iv schedule to the industrial disputes act. ..... in the course of conducting its business, steps have to be taken and implemented in a planned manner and as long as the reasons are bona fide and commercially supportable decisions, the trade unions cannot seek to involve this court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india, either to devalue the wisdom of such decision or to devalue the exercise of the administrative power involved. ..... having acquired vast extent of area by the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894, for a public purpose, the respondents cannot now take any action contrary to that public purpose.4. .....

Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1986SC1168; [1986(52)FLR688]; (1986)2GLR1321; 1986LabIC879; (1986)IILLJ124SC; 1986(1)SCALE1191; (1986)3SCC131; [1986]2SCR1059; 1986(2)SLJ150(SC); 1986(2)LC101(SC)

..... sub-section (3) of section 33 of the act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) thereof no employer shall during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute - (a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or (b) by discharging or punishing whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. ..... during the pendency of a reference made under the industrial disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') to the industrial tribunal, gujarat the management served a charge-sheet on the appellant who was one of the workmen working in the factory belonging to the management of the alembic chemical works co. ..... the case falling under section 33(1) of the act is not in any way different from a case falling under sub-section (3) of section 33 and in both these cases previous permission of the authority concerned should be obtained before any action is taken against the workman concerned unlike a case falling under section 33(2)(b) of the act where only its approval to an action already taken is required to be sought. .....

Holy Family English Medium L.P. School and Others Vs. Employees State ...

Court : Kerala

..... for a detailed scrutiny, definition of the terms under different statutes requires to be looked into, as extracted below: section 2 (s) of the industrial disputes act defines the term workman as follows: workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire and reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this act in relation to an industrial dispute, included any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with ..... . act, 1947 were applicable to the educational institutions established and administered by the minorities which were protected by clause (1) of article 30 of the constitution of india ..... . christian medical college vellore association and others), the disciplinary action taken by the management was challenged from the part of the workmen by raising an industrial dispute ..... this court does not find any reason to disagree with the above findings; more so when the said notification has been issued based on a conscious decision taken by the central government while granting prior approval as stated herein before. 18. ..... . by virtue of the correction as above, the aided schools and the employees/teachers engaged in such schools were taken outside the purview of the esi act .....

The Management Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Labour and anr.

Court : Chennai

..... as it involves an interpretation of section 33(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947, it is necessary to extract the said provision of law. ..... ....the proviso to section 33(2)(b) affords protection to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is a shield against victimization and unfair labour practice by the employer during the pendency of industrial dispute when the relationship between them is already strained. ..... where an application is made under section 33(2)(b) proviso, the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer has to examine whether the order of dismissal or discharge is bona fide; whether it was by way of victimization or unfair labour practice; whether the conditions contained in the proviso were complied with or not etc. ..... in this view, it is not correct to say that even though where the order of discharge or dismissal is inoperative for contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso or where the approval is refused, a workman should still make a complaint under section 33-a and that the order of dismissal or discharge becomes invalid or void only when it is set aside under section 33-a and that till such time he should suffer misery of unemployment in spite of the statutory protection given to him by the proviso to section 33(2)(b). .....

The Management, State Express Transport Corporation Vs. the Joint Comm ...

Court : Chennai

..... section 33(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947, it is necessary to extract the said provision of law:"section 33 (2): during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute (or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman),(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement ..... the words "action taken" in the proviso as equal to "action proposed to be taken" as the bombay high court has done and that the apparent conflict between the two parts of the proviso can be harmonized, as we have indicated above, leaving it open to the employer to dismiss or discharge the employee and at the same time pay him the necessary wages and make an application to the authority concerned for approval of the action taken ..... section 33a of the act which gives a right to the employer to apply for redress in case an employer contravenes the provision of s.33 and there is no doubt that the proviso to section 33(2)(b) should be so interpreted as not to whittle down the protection ..... the employer's conduct should show that the three things contemplated under the proviso, namely,(i) dismissal or discharge ;(ii) payment of wages ; and(iii) making of the applicationare parts of the .....

Gordon Woodroffe and Company (Private) Limited Vs. S. Venugopal and an ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1958)1MLJ164

..... the management thereafter filed on 9th may, 1957, two petitions before the industrial tribunal, madras, purusant to section 33(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947, as amended, seeking ' the approval' of the tribunal to the action taken by them, namely, to punish their employees in the manner mentioned ..... , who delivered the judgment of the court referring to the scope of the enquiry before the labour appellate tribunal under section 22 said:tribunal before whom an application is made under that section has not to adjudicate upon any industrial dispute arising between the employer and the workman but has only got to consider whether the ban which is imposed on the employer in the matter of altering the conditions of employment to the prejudice of the workman or his discharge or punishment whether by dismissal or otherwise during the pendency of the proceedings therein referred to, should be ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) no employer shall, during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute:(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings ; or(b) by discharging or punishing whether by dismissal or otherwise such protected workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.explanation. .....

Delhi Public Library vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi and Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... modak [air1966sc380: (1965) 3 scr411 have taken the view that if the approval is not granted under section 33(2)(b) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short the act ), the order of dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it was passed and, therefore, the employee becomes entitled to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of disapproval of the application. ..... the proviso to section 33(2)(b) affords protection to a workman to safeguard his is a shield against victimization and unfair labour practice by the employer during the pendency of industrial dispute when the is already strained. ..... (c) 4189/2015 page 10 of 56 prohibited the discharge or dismissal, of any workman, in respect of whom an industrial dispute was already pending before the learned industrial tribunal/labour court, unless the workman had been paid a month s wage and an application had been made, by the employer, to the authority before which the proceedings were pending, for approval of the action to remove the workmen from service. ..... in the first place it is that the employer has taken a prejudicial action against them without the express permission in writing of the authority concerned and thereby deprived them of the salutary safeguard which the legislature has provided for their protection against victimisation. .....

The Automobile Products of India Ltd. Vs. Rukmaji Bala and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1955SC258; (1955)ILLJ346SC; [1955]1SCR1241

..... form dd prescribed by rule 51-a of the industrial disputes (central) rules, 1947, framed under section 38 of the 1947 act, like form e prescribed under section 35 of the 1950 act, requires the complaining workmen to show in their petition of complain not only the manner in which the alleged contravention has taken place but also the grounds on which the order or the act of the management is challenged. ..... the object of section 22 of the 1950 act like that of section 33 of the 1947 act as amended is to protect the workmen concerned in disputes which form the subject-matter of pending proceedings against victimisation by the employer on account of their having raised industrial disputes or their continuing the pending proceedings. ..... it is further the object of the two sections to ensure that proceedings in connection with industrial disputes already pending should be brought to a termination in a peaceful atmosphere and that no employer should during the pendency of those proceedings take any action of the kind mentioned in the sections which may give rise to fresh disputes likely to further exacerbate the already strained relation between the employer and the workmen. ..... in the first place it is that the employer has taken a prejudicial action against them without the express permission in writing of the authority concerned and thereby deprived them of the salutary safeguard which the legislature has provided for their protection against victimisation. .....

Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal (i.G. Thakore) ...

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1963)0GLR622; (1963)IILLJ527Guj

..... section 33 of the industrial disputes act, 1947, runs as under : '33. ..... (3) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), no employer shall, during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute - (a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him, immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, or (b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. ..... it is proposed to alter the existing provisions so as to provide that, where, during the pendency of proceedings an employer finds it necessary to proceed against any workman in regard to any matter unconnected with the dispute, he may do so in accordance with the standing order applicable to the workman, but where the action taken involves discharge or dismissal, he will have to pay the workman one month's wages and simultaneously file an application before the authority, before which the proceeding is pending, for its approval of the action taken. .....