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
The appellant was the President of the Nagpur Textile Union, who organized a strike against the Empress Mills, Nagpur for not fulfilling certain conditions settled by them in a previous strike.
The appellant in order to make the strike more impactful and to get the involvement of larger members encouraged the members to picket at the mills through speeches.
Also, on a complaint from female members, of the harassment by the police, the appellant posted his wife on the gate of a mill with instructions to beat, with her slippers, anyone who interfered with her.
The charges under S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law were made against him for the abetment of picketing and a conviction order was made by the Court. Hence the appellant made a revision petition.
Issues
Whether the Court was right in making the conviction order.
Whether the appellant will get the benefit of S.17 of the Trade Union Act.
Contentions of the Appellant
By referring to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Criminal Amendment Law, they contended that S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law can not be applied to industrial disputes.
S.7 is directed only for the activities subversive to the Government.
The Legislature while passing the Criminal Amendment Law assured that it will not be applied in the case of industrial disputes.
The ordinance out of which S.7 arose was enacted with the particular purpose of combating the Civil Disobedience Movement.
S.17 of the Trade Union Act provides immunity from criminal conspiracy to raise a strike. And it will be breached by applying S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law to trade disputes.
Ratio Decidendi
Reference to the statement of objects and reasons can only be made where ambiguity is found, as observed in Shantanand Gir v. Basudev Gir. Therefore no reference can be made for such plain and unambiguous words used in S.7.
Although various sections in the Criminal Amendment Law are directed towards activities subversive to the Government, it doesn't mean it has no universal application.
The duty of the Court is to interpret the law as it is. It is not empowered to go into the debate of the Legislature. If the Legislature intended to exclude the application of S.7 from industrial disputes, it would have mentioned it explicitly.
S.17 only protects from making an agreement that is directed towards achieving any objectives of the Trade Union and from only the offence of Criminal conspiracy.
Summary
The applicant through a revision petition made an appeal to the Nagpur High Court against the order of conviction. The applicant was the President of Nagpur Textile Union who was charged under S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law for his speech during a strike which encouraged the picketing of the Mills and also for the abetment of picketing by his wife. Although the petitioner contended that S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law has no application on industrial disputes and it is directed towards activities subversive to the Government, the Court rejected all these contentions and held that S. 7 has its universal application and also it is not against the criminal immunity as provided by S.17 of the Trade Union Act. S.17 itself makes liable the members and officers of a Trade Union for an agreement to commit any offence. It only protects from making an agreement that is directed towards achieving any objectives of the Trade Union and from only the offence of Criminal conspiracy.
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