Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-26-1985
Reported in : (1986)2GLR910
B.K. Mehta, Actg. C.J.1. Since these two petitions, first at the instance of 33 aggrieved workmen challenging the closure of Bakubhai Mangaldas Institute of Mental Health (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute'), and second at the instance of the said Institute challenging the award of arbitration under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act directing reinstatement of 33 workmen-respondents Nos. 2 to 34 of the said petition, raise common questions of law and facts, we intend to dispose them of by this common judgment. In order to appreciate these questions in proper perspective, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of these two petitions.2. B.M. Institute is a non-profit, research, service and training organisation interested broadly in preventive mental health services. It was originally founded as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the year 1966. It was also registered as a public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-15-1985
Reported in : [1986(52)FLR609]; (1985)2GLR1415; (1986)ILLJ456Guj
Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which is, in substance, one under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner National Dairy Development Board has sought intervention of this Court for quashing and setting aside the award. Part-I dated 4th May, 1984 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Reference (I.T. No. 645 of 1980. The industrial dispute between the petition Board and its workmen represented by the respondent Union came to be referred for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by the appropriate Government under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said dispute pertained to the demand of the workmen for payment of the bonus for the year 1979-80 at 20%. The contention of the petitioner Board was that it is not liable to pay any bonus to the workmen and that the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, were not applicable to the petitioner Board in view of S. 32(iv) as well as S. 32(v...
Tag this Judgment!