Court : Supreme Court of India
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedThe High Court was right in holding that the impugned conclusion arrived at by the specified authority and the Central Government on the issue of non-fulfillment of the condition specified in srl. (a) of the Section 72A(1) being vitiated was liable to be set aside and accordingly the recommendations of the specified authority and order of the Central Government based thereon is liable to be quashed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1462; 1983LabIC1483; (1983)IILLJ429SC; 1983(2)SCALE199; (1983)4SCC214; [1983]3SCR799; 1983(2)SLJ570(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The Central Government, the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi : 'Whether the action of the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mew Delhi in dismissing Shri S.K. Verma, Development Officer in Jullunder Branch of the Corporation, with effect from February 8, q 1969 is justified If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?' The Life Insurance Corporation promptly raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the reference on the ground that Shri S.K. Verma was not a workman.2. There appears to be three preliminary objections which have became quite the fashion to be raised by all employers, particularly public sector corporations, whenever an industrial dispute is referred to a tribunal for adjudication. One objection is that there is no industry, a second that there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1182; (1983)3CompLJ30(SC); [1983]144ITR225(SC); 1983(2)SCALE222; (1983)4SCC392; [1983]3SCR773
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the recommendation of a statutory body (specified Authority under Section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961) and the Central Government's decision based on it-a matter of subjective satisfaction- were open to judicial review and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the same ?2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaidquestion may be stated : Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (for short 'M & M') was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1913 and is thus duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ; its share capital has been widely held, the principal shareholders being the public financial institutions to the extent of about 40 per cent of its equity share capital; it is engaged in the manufacture inter alia of jeeps and other motor vehicles on a large scale.3. M/s. Inter-national Tractor Company of India Limited (for short 'ITCI') was in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1201; 1983(31)BLJR677; 1983(2)SCALE173; (1983)4SCC461; 1984(16)LC192(SC)
1. This appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the appellate decree of the Calcutta High Court upholding the dismissal of her declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a charge on the estate of her deceased husband Captain Majumdar for the payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 350/- p.m. in terms of the decree dated May 31, 1966. While granting a decree for dissolution of marriage, the Court had directed that the plaintiff would get permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs. 350/- p.m. from the date of the decree till her death or her re-marriage or any other act which would disentitle her from getting the amount. Maintenance was paid up to October 1972 by the husband who was a pilot in the Indian Airlines. He died on December 18, 1972, leaving behind inter alia, an asset of Rs. 2,00,916.00 lying to his credit with his employer. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 1582/74 for creation of a charge and also asked for recovery of Rs. 8,750/- cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC61; 1984LabIC5; 1983(2)SCALE394; 1984Supp(1)SCC19; 1984(16)LC59(SC)
ORDER1. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha (Union for short) made an application under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Act for short) to the Industrial Court at Bombay which was registered as Application (MRTU) No. 24 of 1982. This application was rejected by the Industrial Court as per its Order dated March 25, 1983. The Union sought special leave to appeal against the decision of the Industrial Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Special leave to appeal was granted on April 20, 1983.2. It transpired during the course of hearing that there was an uninterrupted strike spreading over a period of 600 days and no fruitful negotiation took place as the parties concentrated their energies on the question whether the appellant-Union can get a status of a recognised Union under the Act.3. Keeping open the question whether the Union is entitled to recognition under the Act, it was suggested to the parties that they shoul...
Tag this Judgment!