Back
2004(5) Supreme 388
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu, CJI, K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Venkatarama Reddi, B.N. Srikrishna & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
U.P. Co-operative Cane Unions Federations -Appellant
versus
West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and Ors., Etc. Etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1997
With
C.A.Nos. 461/97, 4685/97, 932/2001, 1639-1645/99, IA Nos. 13-14 In C.A. Nos. 3512-3513/1997, 1727/99, 4602/99, 6065/2001, C.A.No. 3023/2004 @ SLP (C) No. 16851/2001, C.A.No. 3022/2004 @ SLP (C) 1363/2002, SLP (C) No. 948/2003, C.A.Nos. 8117-8122/2001, T.C.Nos. 21-22/2003, C.P. (C) Nos. 63/2003 In C.A.No. 932/2001
All Decided on 5-5-2004
ORDER
In view of the majority judgment,
C.A.Nos. 460/97 and 461/1997 are allowed and the judgment and order dated 11.12.1996 of the High Court is set aside;
C.A.Nos. 1727/99 and 4602/1999 are dismissed and the judgment and order dated 1.2.1999 of the High Court is affirmed;
C.A.Nos. 4685/97 is allowed and the judgment and order dated 4.2.1997 of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law;
C.A.No. 6065/2001 & SLP (C) 1363/2002 : Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 1363/2002. The appeals are allowed;
C.A.Nos. 8117-22/2001 and SLP (C) 16851/2001 : Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 16851/2001. The appeals are allowed;
TC Nos. 21 & 22/2003 : These transferred cases are disposed of; SLP (C) Nos. 948/2003 : The special leave petition is dismissed;
I.A.No. 3/2002 In CA 460/1997 is dismissed;
C.A.No. 932/2001 is disposed of; and
C.A.Nos. 1639-45/99, CP No. 63/2002 in CA No. 932/2001 and IA Nos. 13-14 in CA Nos. 3512-3513/97 : List before an appropriate Bench.
Appeals disposed of accordingly.
****************
00027
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
