Posts

Showing posts with the label Trade Union Act

Must Read

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

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

State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1

Image
State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) Case Summary Introduction The present appeal along with other connected cases was made to this 5-Judge Bench on the reference of the 3-Judge Bench of this Court.  Factual Background Jai Bir Singh and other respondents were employed by the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation (UPSWC), a statutory corporation. Their services were terminated without a formal inquiry or adherence to procedures laid out in the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947. The respondents challenged their termination, claiming it was unjust and that they were entitled to protections under the Industrial Disputes Act as "workmen." Case History This case was referred by the three-judge Bench of this Court to a five-judge Bench after finding different opinions by this Court in two different cases over the same issue of whether the "Social Forestry Department" of State which is a welfare scheme would be covered by the definition of "industry"

Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 Pat. 170

Image
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

R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor AIR 1935 Nag. 149

Image
R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor, 1935 Case Summary/Brief  Facts 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

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

Image
In Re Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, AIR 1936 || Case Summary  Facts 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.  Therefore the appellant came here under S.11 of the Trade Union Act. Issue  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  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.  Section 8 of the Trade Union Act empowers the Registrar to refuse a

The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, Madras v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962

Image
The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, Madras v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962||Case Summary  Facts  The appellant Union was a Service Association of all the Non-gazetted Officers of the Madras Government except the executive officers of police and prison departments.  Ten members of the association made an application to the Registrar for registration as a Trade Union. The Registrar rejected the application on the ground that the said association of ministerial employees cannot claim registration as a trade union. Case History In an appeal under S. 11 of the Trade Union to the Court of Learned Judge Rama Chandra Iyer,  w hile upholding the order of the Registrar said:- "Workman" under S. 2(h) of the Trade Union Act includes only manual laborers and workers and does not include civil servants. The concept of collective bargaining which is the rationale behind trade unions does not apply to government servants. Also, a trade union has the r

Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962

Image
Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962||Case Summary  Facts Persons employed at Raj Bhavan of Guindy and Ootacamund, Tamilnadu as domestic helpers, gardeners, and maistries formed a Trade union and applied for its registration before the registrar of Trade Union, Madras. Although all of them were appointed and controlled by the Comptroller, only the domestic helpers were entitled to the pension. Case History The Registrar rejected the application for registration on the ground that members were not associated with a trade or business, which is essential to form a trade union as per S.2(h) of the Trade Union Act, 1926. The petitioner made an appeal under S.11 of the Trade Union Act of 1926. Petitioner Contention The term "Workmen" means one employed in an industry. Although the definition of an Industry is not given in the Trade Union Act Industry, as per S.2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act includes the services provided by the workers as they were not only serving