Court : Jharkhand
..... 43 of 2011 tata steel limited, formerly m/s tata iron and steel company limited, a company incorporated under the indian companies act, having its registered office at 24, homi mody street, fort, mumbai and its works at jamshedpur, p.o. ..... the final decision dated 8 7 1986 of the division bench dismissing the appeal from appellate decree no. ..... kamal sengupta, the court considered the question whether a tribunal established under the administrative tribunals act, 1985 can review its decision, referred to section 22(3) of that act, some of the judicial precedents and observed: (scc p. ..... if an error is not self evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of order 47 rule 1 cpc or section 22(3)(f) of the act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
..... kamal sengupta, the court considered the question whether a tribunal established under the administrative tribunals act, 1985 can review its decision, referred to section 22(3) of that act, some of the judicial precedents and observed: (scc p. ..... the final decision dated 8-7-1986 of the division bench dismissing the appeal from appellate decree no. ..... on merit the counsel for the applicant has argued that there is an error committed by this court that the delay cannot be condoned by the learned trial court in an application under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. ..... if an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of order 47 rule 1 cpc or section 22(3)(f) of the act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
..... kamal sengupta, the court considered the question whether a tribunal established under the administrative tribunals act, 1985 can review its decision, referred to section 22(3) of that act, some of the judicial precedents and observed: (scc p. ..... the final decision dated 8-7-1986 of the division bench dismissing the appeal from appellate decree no. ..... if an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of order 47 rule 1 cpc or section 22(3)(f) of the act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
..... 2 and once the reference is made by the central government under section 10 of the act, 1947, the industrial tribunal cannot decide whether there is retrenchment or not and whether respondent no ..... the present case there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the petitioner was a workman under section 2(s) of the act at the time of the passing of the impugned order terminating his services. ..... , which is the appropriate government, was not justified in adjudicating the dispute, namely, whether the convoy drivers are workmen or 6 employees of telco or not and, accordingly, the impugned orders of the deputy labour commissioner acting on behalf of the government and that of the government itself cannot be sustained. 16. ..... learned counsel for the appellants is also relying upon section 10(4) of the act, 1947 and has submitted that these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned single judge and, hence, the order passed by the learned single judge in w.p. (l) ..... insurance corporation of india a body corporate constituted under the life insurance corporation of india act, 1956 having its central office at yogakshema, jeevan beema marg, p.o. & p.s. ..... having given our best consideration in the matter, we are of the view that the dispute should be adjudicated by the industrial tribunal and, as the government has persistently declined to make a reference under section 10(1) of the act, we think we should direct the government to make such a reference. .....
Tag this Judgment!