P JANARDHANA SHETTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(KAR)-1969-12-5
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on
December 24,1969
P.JANARDHANA SHETTY
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
REX V. VINE [REFERRED TO]BARHER V. PIODEN [REFERRED TO]
SUNSHINE PORCELAIN POTTERIES V. NASH [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT CHANDRA CHOWDHURY V. MOHITOSH MUKHARJEE MUKHARJEE [REFERRED TO]
SRI GOPAL PAVER MILLS LTD. V. STATE OF HARYANA [RELIED ON]
CARSON V. CARSON STOYEK [REFERRED TO]
SHAMRAO V PARULEKAR STATE OF HYDERABAD VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THANA BOMBAY:DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THANA BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ MALI MOHTA AND CO VS. A V VISVANATHA SASTRI [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI MILLS LIMITED MADURAI VS. A V VISVANATHA SASTRI [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL PROVINCES TRANSPORT SERVICE LIMITED NAGPUR VS. RAGHUNATH GOPAL PATWARDHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. R M D CHI MARBAUGWALA ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MYSORE INTERVENER [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MOTI RAM DEKA SUDHIR KUMAR DAS PRIYA GUPTA MOTI RAM DEKA TIRATH RAM LAKHANPAL UNION OF INDIA HARI KISHORE RAM CHANDRA LAL RAM DUTTA UPADHYA ONKAR NATH AKHAURIA VS. GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY:GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY:GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY:GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY:UNION OF INDIA:S B TEWARI:PARIMAL GUPTA:PREMCHAND THAKUR:S B TEW [REFERRED TO]
KAPUR CHAND VS. B S GREWAL FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
S K DUTTA INCOME TAX OFFICER SALARYCURN S I B CIRCLE ASSAM VS. LAWRENCE SINGH INGTY [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT NATIONAL PRODUCTVITY COUNCIL VS. S N KAUL [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH GHULAM RASUL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAM LAKHAN SINGH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-1999-5-186] [REFERRED TO]KINNISON JUTE MILLS CO LTD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1973-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
RUSTON AND HORNSBY I LIMITED VS. T B KADAM [LAWS(SC)-1975-7-29] [OVERRULED]
TAVATI SRINIVAS VS. N. PADMAVATHI [LAWS(APH)-2014-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. -
(1.)These three petitions are similar and they raise common questions of law. They relate to the disputes arising out of termination of services of Individual workmen by their respective employers who are the petitioners herein.
(2.)In these petitions, the petitioners have asked for striking down S. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . Thev have also imnusned the Conciliation proceedings pending before the Labour & Conciliation Officer, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Conciliation Officer) in respect of such disputes.
(3.)Respondent 4 In each of these petitions whose services were terminated, preferred an appeal under S. 39 of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Shops & Establishments Act), before the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), who is the Appellate Authority under the said Act. After S. 2A was inserted in the Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1965. (Central Act XXXV of 1965), the Commissioner issued a Circular (marked Ext.-III in each of these petitions) in which it was stated that a workman who is removed or dismissed from service by his employer, can get better reliefs under the provisions of the Act than under the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act. The Circular advised workmen who had preferred appeals under S. 39 of the Shops and Establishments Act to consider the desirability of withdrawing such appeals and approaching the Conciliation Officer for taking up the matter under the provisions of the Act.
;
(2.)In these petitions, the petitioners have asked for striking down S. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . Thev have also imnusned the Conciliation proceedings pending before the Labour & Conciliation Officer, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Conciliation Officer) in respect of such disputes.
(3.)Respondent 4 In each of these petitions whose services were terminated, preferred an appeal under S. 39 of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Shops & Establishments Act), before the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), who is the Appellate Authority under the said Act. After S. 2A was inserted in the Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1965. (Central Act XXXV of 1965), the Commissioner issued a Circular (marked Ext.-III in each of these petitions) in which it was stated that a workman who is removed or dismissed from service by his employer, can get better reliefs under the provisions of the Act than under the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act. The Circular advised workmen who had preferred appeals under S. 39 of the Shops and Establishments Act to consider the desirability of withdrawing such appeals and approaching the Conciliation Officer for taking up the matter under the provisions of the Act.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.