Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

In Re Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, AIR 1936

By

In Re Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, AIR 1936 || Case Summary 

Facts

  1. An application for the registration of the "Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union", formed by the employees of all Inland Steamer Services, was rejected by the Registrar on the ground of a declaration made by the General Sec. of the Inland Steam Navigation Worker's Union that this Union was formerly known as RSN and LGN and Ry. Workers' Union which have been declared unlawful under S. 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, and had been banned. 
  2. Therefore the appellant came here under S.11 of the Trade Union Act.

Issue 

  1. Whether the Registrar of the Trade Union was right to pass a decision after relying on the letter presented before the Bengal Government.

Ratio Decidendi 

  1. The Registrar must have to notify and provide an opportunity to defend to the appellant before rejecting the application on the basis of the letter. 
  2. Section 8 of the Trade Union Act empowers the Registrar to refuse a Union from registration only on the ground that the said Union has not complied with the requirements as provided by the Act.
  3. The Registrar is not empowered to go into the question of whether the said organization is an unlawful association because the Registrar is limited to see whether the requirements of the Act have been complied with or not. The legality of the Union can only be decided by a Court based on the evidence placed.
  4. The duties of the Registrar before registering a Union under this Act are:-
    1. To examine the application presented for registration.
    2. To look into the objects for which the Union was formed.
    3. To examine whether the said objects are intra vires or ultra vires of the act.

Decision 

  1. The appeal was allowed.
  2. The Court observed that the matter should be sent back to the Registrar to consider the question of whether the requirements in regard to the registration have been complied with or not. 

Summary

On an application for the registration of the Union of employees of all Inland Steamer Services of Bengal known as "Inland Steam Navigation Workers' Union", the Registrar refused to register on the ground of a declaration made by the General Sec. of the Inland Steam Navigation Worker's Union that this Union was formerly known as RSN and LGN and Ry. Workers' Union which have been declared unlawful under S. 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, and had been banned. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal held that the Registrar is not empowered to check the legality of a Union. S.8 of the Trade Union Act empowers the Registrar to refuse a Union from registration only on the ground that the said Union has not complied with the requirements as provided by the Act.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more