SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 992

S.B.MAJMUDAR, UMESH C.BANERJEE, M.SRINIVASAN
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
PWD EMPLOYEES UNION – Respondent


( 1 ) HAVING heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Dholakia for the appellant state we do not think that this is a fit case for our interference. The sole question is whether PWD is an industry, and therefore, governed under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This question is squarely covered by a decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage board v. A. Rajappa1. It is true that earlier a Bench of two learned Judges wanted this decision to be reconsidered but that reference has been sent back by a larger Bench of this Court and the decision in the case of Bangalore water Supply therefore, holds the field. Consequently, this appeal does not survive any further for consideration of the aforesaid question. It is, therefore, dismissed.

( 2 ) NO costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top