Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th April 1953
M. PATANJALI SASTRI, CJI., B.K. MUKHERJEA, S.R. DAS AND GHULAM HASAN JJ.
Lloyds Bank. Ltd. - Appellants.
Versus
The Lloyds Bank Indian Staff Association and others ... Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1953.
Held1: "The objection is that the award was passed on 5-1-1950 and was published under S. 17, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Government in a notification of the Ministry of Labour dated 17.1.1950 and was also declared binding on the same day for a period of one year. Article 136 has, therefore, no application to the award as it has been held by this Court that the said article has no retrospective operation.
The preliminary objection is allowed (per Patanjali Sastri C.J.)
Judgement
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.I. This is an appeal by Special Leave from an award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes).
2. A preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of this appeal, the liberty to raise such objection having been reserved to the respondents at the time when Special leave was granted to the appellants. The objection is that the award was passed on 5.1.1950 and was published under S. 17, Industrial Disputes Act,1947, by the Government in a notification of the Ministry of Labour dated 17.1.1950 and was also declared binding on the same day for a period of one year. Article 136 has, therefore, no application to the award as it has been held by this Court that the said article has no retrospective operation. This is not disputed by Mr. S. Chaudhuri but he argues that the award was really published only on 28.1.1950, when the notification referred to above appeared in the Gazette of India. We see no force in this argument. The preliminary objection is allowed and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1956 SC 745
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
