Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-31-1977
..... legislation may be considered to assist in the interpretation of prior legislation upon the same subject." tiger v. western investment co., 221 u. s. 286 , 221 u. s. 309 (1911); see nlrb v. bell aerospace co., 416 u. s. 267 , 416 u. s. 275 (1974) (subsequent legislation page 431 u. s. 394 entitled to "significant weight"); red ..... procedures, to gain for him full "make whole" relief, including appropriate seniority. the government responds that a seniority system that perpetuates the effects of prior discrimination -- pre-act or post-act -- can never be "bona fide" under 703(h); at a minimum, title vii prohibits those applications of a seniority system that perpetuate the effects on incumbent employees ..... company discriminated both before and after the enactment of title vii, the seniority system is said to have operated to perpetuate the effects of both pre- and post-act discrimination. post-act discriminatees, however, may obtain full "make whole" relief, including retroactive seniority under franks v. bowman, supra, without attacking the legality of the seniority system as ..... seniority systems that perpetuate discrimination, and administrative, and legislative developments since 1964 positively refute that conclusion. a the court's decision to uphold seniority systems that perpetuate post-act discrimination -- that is, seniority systems that treat negroes and spanish-surnamed americans who become line drivers as new employees even though, after the effective date of title vii .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-22-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Kant168; ILR1977KAR360; 1977(2)KarLJ505
..... sri balakrishna, it would be binding on all the courts in the country. in this context, attention was invited to an enunciation of the supreme court in the case of municipal committee, amritsar v. hazara singh, : 3scr914 . the relevant enunciation, reproduced from an earlier judgment of the supreme court in malwa co-operative milk union ltd., indore v. biharilal, decided ..... matters other than law have no binding force. several decisions of the supreme court are on facts and that court itself has pointed out in gurcharan singh v. state of punjab, (1972 fac 549) (punj & har) and prakash chandra pathak v. state of uttar pradesh, : air1960sc195 that as on facts no two cases could be similar, its own decisions which were ..... . 131' does not define the scope, of the disputes which this court may be called upon to determine in the same way as s. 204 of the government of india act, and we do not find it necessary to do so, this much is certain that the legal right which is the subject of dis dispute must arise in the context .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-18-1977
Reported in : (1978)ILLJ302Del
..... workers. learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to poona mardoor subha v. g.k. dhuriu and anr. : air1956bom743 , british india corporation ltd. v. industrial tribunal punjab and anr. 1959 1 l.l.j. 68; indian industrial works ltd. v. engineering mazdoor sabha 1955 2 l.l.j. 675, ramnagar cane and sugar co ..... not possible to refute the stand now. the conclusion binds the petitioner also.7. in this respect, the definition of award' in the industrial disputes act can be use fully referred to. it is defined in section 2(b) as follows:'award' means an interim or a final determination of any industrial ..... on the factory workers then it continues to bind them until the award is somehow suspended by giving a notice under section 19(6) of the act. i have no doubt that the contention is well-founded provided the previous industrial award is binding on the factory workers. 5. for the purpose ..... index as opposed to the bengal index.4. dr. anand prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 18(3) of the industrial disputes act, 1947, shows that once an award has been made, it is binding on all the parties to the industrial dispute. he also relies on section 19 ..... over by shri d.d. gupta, made an award dated 22nd october, 1974, on a reference made under section 10(1)(d) of the industrial disputes act, 1944. the terms of the reference were as follows:whether dearness allowance payable to all categories of workmen employed in factory including general staff (employed in delhi .....Tag this Judgment!