Court : US Supreme Court
Lewis v. Frick - 233 U.S. 291 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Lewis v. Frick, 233 U.S. 291 (1914) Lewis v. Frick No. 208 Argued January 28, 1914 Decided April 6, 1914 233 U.S. 291 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Where an alien enters this country more than once, the period of three years from entry prescribed by 20 and 21 of the Alien Immigration Law runs not from the date when he first entered the country, but from the time of his entry under conditions within the prohibitions of the act. Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78 . Where, as in this case, there was evidence sufficient to justify the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in concluding that the alien was within the prohibitions of the Alien Immigration Act, and the hearing was fairly conducted, the decision of the Secretary is binding upon the courts. Under 2 of the Alien Immigration Act of 1907 as amended in 1910, it is an offense for any person, citizen or alien, to bring into t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lingle v. Norge Div., Magic Chef, Inc. - 486 U.S. 399 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Lingle v. Norge Div., Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. No. 87-259 Argued March 23, 1988 Decided June 6, 1988 486 U.S. 399 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus After petitioner notified her employer (respondent) that she had been injured in the course of her employment and requested compensation for her medical expenses pursuant to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, she was discharged for filing an allegedly false worker's compensation claim. The union representing petitioner filed a grievance pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement that protected employees from discharge except for "just" cause and that provided for arbitration of disputes between the employer and any employee concerning the effect or interpretation of the agreement. While arbitration was proceeding, petitioner filed a retal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(L)No.2403of2017 ReliancePetrolPump,aproprietaryconcern,throughitsManager andauthorizedrepresentative,UpendraSingh,sonofLateKalika Singh, workingatGadke,Rampur,NearAryaSteel,P.O.& P.S. Namkum,DistrictRanchi ... Petitioner Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhand 2. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Employment & Training, Shram Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,DistrictRanchi 3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Employment & Training, Shram Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,DistrictRanchi 4.AnjaniKumarPandey,sonofLateKripaNidanPandey,General Secretary, Jharkhand General Kamgar Union, Gangutoli, Bahu Bazar,P.O.&P.S.Chutia,DistrictRanchi ... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLEMR.JUSTICERAJESHSHANKAR ForthePetitioner :Mr.NipunBakshi,Advocate FortheState :Ms.JyotiNayan,JCtoGPIV FortheRespondentNo.4 :Mr.AnjaniKumarPandey,Inperson OrderNo.08 Dated:29.08.2017 Heardthelearnedcounselforthep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W. P. (Cr.) No. 433 of 2010 Mustak Seikh ..... Appellant(s) Versus 1.State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Deptt. of Labour, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2.The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka.3. The Labour Superintendent (Agriculture Labour), Sahebganj, District :- Sahebganj.4. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Sadar Circle, Pakur . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH Mr. K. K. Ojha, Advocate For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sahja Nand Sarswati, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : J.C. to S.C. (L & C) ----- C.A.V. On 25.08.2017. Pronounced on 04.10.2017.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents.2. This Criminal Writ bearing No.433 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the entire prosecution case being OCR Case No.185 of 2009/ T.R. Case No.682 of 2009, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR870; [2001(91)FLR1079]; 2002(4)MhLj151
R.M.S. Khanderparkar, J.1. The point for consideration which arise in this petition is whether in the absence of undisputed or undisputable employer-employee relationship between the parties, can the question of unfair labour practice be enquired into by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court constituted under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as the 'said Act')?2. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of Seamless Metal Tubes and has its factory at C-1, M.I.D.C. Industrial Estate at Ahmednagar. The respondents No. 1 to 12 are the employees engaged by M/s Industrial Cleaning Services - the respondent No. 13 to whom the petitioner had given a contract for gardening, cleaning conservancy etc.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents No. 1 to 12 are not the employees of the petitioner nor the petitioner is the employer of the said respondents within the meaning of said expression under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)IIILLJ1065Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. Heard Sri V.Y. Patil and Sri Bora, the learned advocates for their respective parties.2. Rule. Expedited.3. Interim order is being granted by me directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to join his duties forthwith within one week from today.4. Sri P.B. Akolkar, the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Nasik, has passed an ex-fade perverse order without considering any facts after remand by the order, dated March 26, 1998, passed by this Court (LODHA, J). There is total non-application of mind by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court ought to have taken an elementary care to check the impugned order as at one place he writes that -'the revision requires to be dismissed in limine'' while finally he has allowed the revision. He does not care to give any reasons for allowing the revision. He merely cites some rulings without referring to the ratios of those decisions and the facts, at least in brief. The learned Judge shall take every care and precaution ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998(80)FLR976]; ILR1999KAR226
ORDER1. Petitioner-employer, in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeks quashing of the award of the second respondent Industrial Tribunal dated 16-8-1994 at Annexure-A, insofar as it holds strike by the members of the first respondent Employees' Association-Workmen of the petitioner establishment-from 12-8-1982 to 31-8-1982, as justified, and insofar as it holds the workmen entitled to wages for the said period. 2. The erstwhile Deccan Wires Limited (Wire Division) had been manufacturing sophisticated high carbon steel wires, going into production in the year 1976. It suffered loss, and it was amalgamated with the petitioner M/s. Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Limited with effect from 31-5-1980, After amalgamation, the erstwhile Deccan Wires at Bangalore is referred to as the Wire Division. M/s. Panyam Cements had units in Karnool and Bellary Districts also. While the management paid bonus at 20% in 1979-80 and 16% in 1980-81 to the workmen of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(2)AWC975; [1998(79)FLR113]; (1998)IILLJ1048All; (1998)2UPLBEC1257
R. K. Mahajan, J.1. This writ petition involves a short question whether a joint reference with respect to termination/retrenchment of several employees can be subject-matter of adjudication by the Labour Court when the employees are working in different branches though their employer is one and the same. The reference in question as referred in Annexure-C.A. 1 is as under :'Whether the action of the Management of Allahabad Bank in terminating the services of S/Sri Swami Din, Jeevan Chander, Udai Kumar. Chander Shekhar Dwivedi, Ram Manohar, Shahu Ram, Shankar Lal, Namdeo, Devldin, Bala Prasad, Surendra Kumar, Guiab Chander, Hari Kishan, Kalpanath Ram, Ram Lakhan, Harish Chandra Yadav, Narendra Narain Mishra, Sunder Lal, Ram Naresh, Daya Ram, Ramayan Rai, Ram Shanker Ram, Htaph Khan, Ram Pati Ram, Devanand Ram, Khem Chand, Nand Kishore, Hari Charan, Rajendra Pratap Mishra from the services of the Bank and not considering them for further employment while recruiting fresh hands under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(4)AWC3791; [2007(113)FLR1049]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award, passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner to keep the workman in a surplus pool w.e.f. 1.1.1993 and to take work from him and also pay him back wages.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the State Government referred a dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of the reference order was-Whether the employers was justified in not giving work to the workman inspite of keeping him in the surplus pool as per the settlement dated 13.12.1984, if not, to what relief is the workman was entitled to?3. Before the Labour Court, the workman filed his written statement contending that a settlement was arrived at between the Union and the Management on 13.12.1984 which was duly registered under Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. In this settlement, the management was required to keep the workman in a surpl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC914; [1984(48)FLR417]; (1984)ILLJ546SC; 1984(1)SCALE474; (1984)2SCC569; [1984]3SCR169; 1984(1)SLJ569(SC); 1984(16)LC523(SC)
A. Varadarajan, J.1. This civil appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 11.1.1982 dismissing in limine Writ Petition No. 26 of 1982 which had been filed by the appellant Ved Prakash Gupta. The appellant was an employee of the first respondent M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. Faridabad, Haryana. He was given a charge-sheet by the management on 5.8.1979 and dismissed from service on 13.9.1979 after having been found guilty of the charge in the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer who has been examined as one of the witnesses on the side of the management before the Labour Court at a later stage. There was a reference of the dispute arising out of the dismissal of the appellant to the Labour Court, Faridabad in Reference No. 143 of 1980 under Section 10(i)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act.' The Labour Court framed the following issues.(i) Whether the cl...
Tag this Judgment!