Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the industrial disputes act 1947 Year: 1954 Page 1 of about 52 results (0.059 seconds)

Feb 10 1954 (HC)

Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-10-1954

Reported in : AIR1954All538; (1954)IILLJ279All

..... bechallenged on these grounds. '14. the fourteenth ground that section 3, u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947, is repugnant to the industrial disputes act, 1947, and is, therefore, void was not seriously pressed before us by shri pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners. the u. p. industrial disputes act (u. p. act 28 of 1947) was reserved by the governor of uttar pradesh for the assent of the governor general whose ..... character to the executive government.8. i am also unable to accept sri pathak's contention that the provisions ot section 3, u. p, industrial disputes act, 1947, (act 28 of 1947) are invalid on the ground that they offend the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 19(1)(f) and 31 of the constitution. i do not see how article ..... against delegated legislation is not judicial but political control with wnich courts have no concern. i am, therefore, clear in my mind that section 3, u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947, (act 28 of 1947) was not beyond tne competence of the legislature and cannot be declared 'ultra vires' on tne ground that it delegates legislative or rule-making power of an unspecified ..... clear.5. the first point on which i would like to say a few words is regarding the contention of sri pathak that section 3, u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947, (act 28 of 1947), is invalid as it is couched in such wide and sweeping language as to vest the executive government with legislative powers which cannot be canalised within definable limits .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1954 (HC)

Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. U.P. Government and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-29-1954

Reported in : AIR1954All705

..... this contention, learned counsel referred me to the definition of the word 'industrial dispute' in the industrial disputes act, 1947 (central act no. 14 of 1947) which definition has been adopted in the u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947 (u. p. act no. 28 of 1947) also. 'industrial dispute' has been defined to mean 'any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen, or between ..... government itself had no power of adjudicating on such industrial disputes either under the u. p. industrial disputes act (u. p. act no. 28 of 1947) or under the central industrial disputes act, 1947 (central act no. 14 of 1947). the state government had, therefore, to fall back upon the provisions of section 3(b), u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947, and, in doing so, obviously, it went ..... employment, and 'conditions of labour'. i do not consider that such an analogy exists or that this-argument can be accepted. section 3(b), u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947, uses the words, 'terms and conditions of employment' and not 'terms of employment' and 'condition of labour'. extending the argument advanced by learned counsel himself, ..... in -- 'basti sugar mills co., ltd. v. state of uttar pradesh : (1954)iillj279all has held that the provisions of clause (b), section 3, u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947, are valid and not ultra vires the legislature. subsequently, a division bench of this court in -- 'british india corporation ltd. v. govt. of the state of uttar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 1954 (HC)

In Re: Mr. Hayles, Editor of The Mail and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-27-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Mad1; 1955CriLJ1

..... lie to a court already established, then that appeal must be regulated by the practice and procedure of that court.'as we have already pointed out, adjudication of an industrial dispute under the industrial disputes act, 1947, cannot be viewed as an extension of or addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of the high court of madras. the decision in -- air 1945 pc 83 (b)', ..... officio' when it gave its award, or at least on the date when the proceedings before that tribunal should be deemed to have concluded under section 20(3) of the industrial disputes act, 1947. his further contentions were, that nothing said or done subsequent to that date, even if it amounted to contempt of, that tribunal, was punishable as contempt, and that, ..... limited by the statute became statutory proceedings in the court of arches.'62. such a claim cannot be made in the present case. the proceedings before the industrial tribunal did not become either under the industrial disputes act, 1947, or under any other statute, proceedings before the high court of madras.63. in -- 'queen v. lefroy', (1873) 8 qb 134 (t), the ..... of contempt of the high court?45. it should be fairly clear that adjudication of industrial disputes under the industrial disputes act, 1947, is not within the jurisdiction of the high court as such. that jurisdiction is only conferred on the special statutory tribunals created by that act. section 10, industrial disputes act read with section 7 makes that clear. 60 it was not in the exercise of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1954 (HC)

Newspapers Ltd., Allahabad Vs. State Industrial Tribunal, U.P., Allaha ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-06-1954

Reported in : AIR1954All516; (1954)IILLJ263All

..... not separately defined. it is laid down in the definition that this expression shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the industrial disputes act, 1947 (central act 14 of 1947). in that act the definition is as follows :'industrial dispute' means 'any dispute or difference between employers and employees, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or ..... government by notification no. 8177(st)/xviii-(la)-261(st)/52, dated 3-1-1953, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 3, 4 and 8 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 and in pursuance of the provisions of clause 10 of the notification dated 15-3-1951, mentioned above. clause 10 lays down that--'the state government if it is ..... which was issued by the state government in exercise of its powers conferred by clauses (b), (c), (d) and (g) of section 3 and section 8, u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947. there can be no doubt that the representation on behalf of tajammul husain sent by the u. p. working journalists' uaion, lucknow, was not the proper method of referring the ..... that the reference was incompetent.3. the second contention is that there was no industrial dispute at all which could be referred, as a dispute between an employer and an individual workman is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of that word, as defined in the u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947.4. the third contention is that the reference of the case to the conciliation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1954 (HC)

British India Corporation Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-05-1954

Reported in : AIR1954All550; (1954)IILLJ275All

..... political control with which courts have no concern. i am, therefore, clear in my mind that s. 3 of the u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947 (act 28 of 1947) was not beyond the competence of the legislature and cannot be declared 'ultra vires' on the ground that it delegates legislative rule-making ..... behalf of the petitioner is that the power conferred by the uttar pradesh legislature on the state government by section 3, u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947,to constitute industrial courts is invalid as it amounts to the delegation of an essential legislative function.6. the impugned section , so far as it is ..... order made in july, 1950, by the state government under section 3 of this same act, the u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947, directing certain sugar factories to make payment of bonus for the preceding years 1947-48 and 1948-49. this order was made by the state government under clause (b) ..... in exercise of powersconferred by sections 3, 4 and 8 of the u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947, and in pursuance of the provisions of clause 10 of an order made on 15-3-1951, under that act. on 16-11-1951, this petition was filed, and by an order of ..... delivered the leading judgment, said :'sri pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenging the validity of section 3 of the u. p. industrial disputes act (act 28 of 1947) principally contended that this section contained delegation of such legislative powers by the legislature to the executive as was unconstitutional and 'ultra vires' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1954 (SC)

The State of Rajasthan Vs. the Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-17-1954

Reported in : AIR1954SC396; (1954)ILLJ611SC; [1954]1SCR1129

..... district judge' used in section 7(3)(a) and (b) respectively of the industrial disputes act, 1947, must be held now to include 'a judge of the high court and a district judge in the former state of jodhpur'. there is now no room for the application ..... ordinance iv of 1950. we think there is force in this contention. the effect of section 34, as we have already indicted, was to extend the territorial application of the industrial disputes act, 1947, to the whole of india including rajasthan the exception being the state of jammu and kashmir only. this being so the words 'a judge of a high court and a ..... sukhdeo narain was appointed on october 9, 1950, by a notification which ran as follows :- 'in exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (xiv of 1947) the government of rajasthan is pleased to constitute an industrial tribunal consisting of shri sukhdeo narain, a retired judge of the high court of the erstwhile jodhpur state for the adjudication of an ..... . it has been contended before us by mr. hajela, the learned advocate-general on behalf of the state, that after the industrial disputes act of the state, that after the industrial disputes act of 1947 was extended to rajasthan by section 34 of the industrial dispute (appellate tribunal) act, xlviii of 1950, the provisions of the former stood amended by section 34 and could not be read subject to section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1954 (SC)

Muir Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-19-1954

Reported in : AIR1955SC170; (1955)ILLJ1SC; [1955]1SCR991

..... , the learned counsel for the respondent, that this court under article 136 should not interfere with the decisions of the tribunals set up by the industrial disputes act, 1947. this contention can be shortly answered by referring to our decision in bharat bank ltd., delhi v. employees of the bharat bank ltd., delhi ..... certain conditions and if such claim is entertained either by an agreement with the employer or by adjudication before a properly constituted tribunal as on an industrial dispute arising, the same would ripen into a legally enforceable claim. 12. this position was recognised in sutton v. attorney-general (1923) 39 ..... bonus was wrongly reduced and asked that bonus for 1949 should also be paid at the rate of 4 annas 4 per rupee. the industrial dispute which thus arose was referred for enquiry and recording of an award to the regional conciliation board (textile), kanpur. the conciliation board by ..... and undistributed profits of the previous years would not entitle the workers to demand bonus out of those funds if the working of the industrial concern during the particular year has resulted in a trading loss. 22. the considerations of social justice imported by the labour appellate tribunal ..... v. rashtreeya mill mazdoor sangh, bombay (1950) 2 l.l.j. 247 : 'as both labour and capital contribute to the earnings of the industrial concern, it is fair that labour should derive some benefit, if there is a surplus after meeting prior or necessary charges' and the following were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1954 (HC)

Sisir Kumar Laha Vs. J.N. Majumdar and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-30-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Cal309

..... 12-1951. these 13 dismissed employees objected to their dismissal and on 22-7-1952 an order was made referring the dispute for adjudication to the industrial tribunal at calcutta constituted under section 7, industrial disputes act 1947. the dispute was as follows:'whether the termination of the services of the undermentioned persons from the calcutta branch of the bank was ..... no hesitation in holding that a dispute raised by a number ..... conclusion that a dispute raised by workmen individually comes within the language of the definition of industrial dispute in section 2(k), industrial disputes act, 1947.8. i think it is not necessary to decide in this case as to whether a dispute raised by one single workman comes within the definition of an industrial dispute under section 2(k), industrial disputes act but i have ..... . m.c. banerjee', 55 cal wn 256 (a), a lino operator was dismissed by the editor of the calcutta weekly noteswhereupon the dismissed employee moved underthe industrial disputes act and initiated conciliatory proceedings thereunder. the editor of thecalcutta weekly notes took objection to the validityof the proceedings and made an application' to thiscourt.mitter j., held .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1954 (SC)

R.S. Seth Shanti Sarup Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-26-1954

Reported in : AIR1955SC624

..... of u. p. which figures as respondents 2 in the petition, passed an order purporting to be made under section 3(f), u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947 by which they appointed respondent 3 one of the partners of the firm, as 'authorised controller' of the undertaking apparently in terms of the provision of ..... the other an earlier one passed by the second respondent on the 21-7-1949, under section 3(f), u. p. industrial disputes act, 1947.there is a further prayer for consequential relief in the shape of restoration of possession of the properties from which the petitioner and ..... substance had the effect of depriving the petitioner of his properties without complying with the provisions of that article.6. now section 3(f), u. p. industrial disputes act, under which the first order was passed, is in the following terms;'3. power to prevent strikes, lock-outs, etc. : if in the opinion ..... department of the u. p. government, wherein the government expressed their desire of taking over these mills and running the same themselves under the industrial disputes act.this fact was recorded by the court in its order dated 2-6-1949, and the learned judge expressed his opinion that although government was ..... the order of the u. p. government mentioned above was illegal and ultra vires and not warranted by the provisions of the u. p. industrial disputes act. there were prayers also for injunction and damages against the u. p. government and respondent 3.soon after this suit was filed the u. p .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 1954 (HC)

Pandyan Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.J. Khambatta and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-08-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Bom241; (1955)57BOMLR186; 1955CriLJ1039; ILR1955Bom443

..... tribunal under article 138, the high court would equally have power of superintendence over that tribunal under article 227. in that case the supreme court held that the industrial tribunal constituted under the industrial disputes act, 1947, was a tribunal within the meaning of article 136, and kania c.j. who delivered a very short judgment agreeing with the judgments of fazl ali j,, ..... mahajan j. and mukherjea j. says (p. 189) :'.while the powers of the industrial tribunal in, some respects are different from those of an ordinary civil court and it has ..... rectify the order passed by the chief presidency magistrate. mr. vimadalal submitted that in a formal investigation there is no 'lis' or dispute and that the chief presidency magistrate in making the formal investigation is under no duty to act judicially and that he is not authorised to give a final decision which is conclusive of any matter under investigation.20. now ..... also be open to the master, mate or engineer to show that there has not been any in-competertcy, misconduct or wrongful act or default which would justify imposition of punishment. obviously, there is in the investigation a 'his',--a dispute. on which evidence is required to he recorded. procedure is provided for hearing the person against whom allegations are . made .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //