Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade unions act 1926 chapter i preliminary Court: chhattisgarh Page 1 of about 2 results (0.030 seconds)

Salil Lawrence and anr. Vs. Subrato Mukherjee and ors.

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : (2006)IIILLJ744CG

..... short 'sermu'). there was reorganization of railway zones, as a consequence of which sermu was bifurcated and secrmu came into existence. sermu was a trade unions act, 1926 (for short 'the act'). before formation of secrmu, all the members of secrmu were the members of sermu. with the decision of formation of new zones, the then general secretary of sermu, ..... 21, 2002, a certified copy of which was obtained only on august 18, 2004, as a certificate of registration issued by the registrar of the trade unions under section 9 of the act in form-e, whereas the evidence on record would disclose that annexure-p/10 was issued in form-b and that is not a certification of registration ..... 11, 2002, because, by that time secrmu was not formed at all. holding an election to elect office bearers of a non-existing trade union is not envisaged under the provisions of the act or the rules framed thereunder or the rules or bye-laws of the secrmu. i find perversity in the reasoning of the industrial court and .....

High Court Bar Association Through its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Vs. Sta ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

..... authorities : 1. state of maharashtra v. kusum wd/o charudutta, 1981 mh u 93. 2. dharamdeo v. bijarat (1996) 2 scc 313. 3. madras bar association v. union of india (2014) 10 scc 1 : (air 2015 sc 1571). 4. nivedita sharma v. cellular operators association of india (2011) 14 scc 337. 5. hakim singh v. ..... only those which lead to gross miscarriage of justice while the certiotari jurisdiction is much more wider. by the incorporation of explanation to section 2 through amendment act 2 of 2014, the enquiry which was permissible under the proviso, whether the single judge had exercised plenary powers under article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under ..... proviso clearly carves out those orders which are either interlocutory in nature or passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution. thus, the act of 2006, from its very inception never intended to provide remedy of appeal where the order was passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. by explanation, it has .....