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
Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 Pat. 170
Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 || Case Summary
What we will learn
Whether the "industrial disputes" cover a dispute raised due to the loss of the employers caused by the strike of the employees.
Whether the workers had committed the tort of conspiracy.
Whether the workers, who participated in an illegal strike, were protected by S.18 of the Trade Union Act.
Whether the company has the right of civil action for damages against the worker.
Facts
The petitioner, a registered trade Union known as the Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh, went on a strike against the non-payment of bonus and non-implementation of the Shri Jee Jee Bhoy's award by the respondents.
The strike ended on an agreement between the parties in which they agreed to settle their dispute through arbitration, as provided under S.10A of the Industrial Dispute Act.
The main issue before the arbitrators was whether the workers were liable to get payment for the period of the strike or whether the company would get compensation for the loss of production due to the strike.
The arbitrators decided in favour of the company and held the Union to compensate.
Therefore the appellant Union filed a writ petition in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of arbitrators.
Issues
Whether the order of the arbitrators was valid.
Contentions/Arguments of the Petitioner
The issue of compensation to the company cannot be referred to the arbitrators as it is not an industrial dispute under S.2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Therefore the order of arbitrators for this issue is invalid and ultra-vires.
The workers had not committed the tort of conspiracy based on which the order was made by the arbitrators.
The arbitrators erred in holding that the workmen were not entitled to protection under S.18(1) as they were taking part in conducting an illegal strike.
The companies are only entitled to criminal prosecution under S.26(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, and no civil action can be taken against the workers who had taken part in an illegal strike.
Ratio Decidendi
The tort of conspiracy is actionable only when the object of such conspiracy is to injure the other person and not to serve their bonafide and legitimate interests. A conspiracy to forward or defend their interest is not actionable even if it results in damaging the other person.
In case of multiple objects or motives of a conspiracy, the test is to determine the predominant object or motive of the conspirers. If the predominant object is to lawfully forward or defend their bonafide interests, it is not actionable even if it results in damaging the other person.
The arbitrators found that the strike was conducted by the Union for "ulterior motives of their own" but were unable to find what those ulterior motives were. Even if they found those ulterior motives they would have to determine the predominant object to decide the tort of conspiracy. The arbitrators should have applied this principle.
S.3 of the British Trade Disputes Act, 1906 also provides immunity to such an act of illegal strike. Therefore, the legality or illegality of the strike under S.24(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act does not prevent it from taking the benefit of S.18 of the Trade Union Act.
The Preamble and various provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act suggest that the overriding purpose of the Act is to benefit the whole industrial community and not only the employers or employees.
The duties provided by S.23 & S.24 are intended, by the Legislature, to be owed to the general public and not to the employers or the employees only. Therefore no civil action can be raised by any of them against the other because civil action cannot be raised for breach of duties owed towards the public. Hence they are only entitled to take criminal prosecution under S.26 of the same Act.
Decisions
Appeal allowed.
The arbitrators erred in their order.
The court found the arbitrators' order to be illegal and ultra vires due to their failure to apply the principle of determining the predominant object or motive of the conspirers.
Summary
A writ petition in the nature of Certiorari filed in the Patna High Court to quash the order of the arbitrators, which imposed compensation to be paid by the petitioner and its members for the loss incurred during the strike to the employers-respondents. The Patna High while declaring the said order as illegal and ultra vires, held that the legality or illegality of the strike under S.24(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act does not prevent from taking the benefit of S.18 of the Trade Union Act. Also, the Court observed that a conspiracy by the Union or its members to forward or defend their interests is not actionable even if it damages the other person. The court found the arbitrators' order to be illegal and ultra vires due to their failure to apply the principle of determining the predominant object or motive of the conspirers.
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
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
Comments
Post a Comment