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

1996 Supreme(Ker) 356

P.SHANMUGAM
Abraham Thomas – Appellant
Versus
Labour Court – Respondent


Judgment :-

P. Shanmugam, J.

Petitioner has challenged the preliminary finding of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 118/95.

2. The facts relating to the filing of the O.P. are as follows: Seven managements of plantation estates denied employment to 22 persons. The Government of Kerala referred the said dispute for adjudication before Labour Court. The petitioner- overruling the objection of the management holding that the subject matter can be adjudicated by the Labour Court and the Government had the competency to refer the matter under ID Act. The said finding is under challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute can only be an "agricultural dispute" under the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974, He also contended that plantations owned by the owners will not be an industry under ID Act, but is only an agricultural land and the workers are agricultural workers. Agriculture has been left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Legislatures and there is a clear distinction between the agriculture on the one hand and the industry on the other. Learned counsel also submitted that under Art.254(2) of the Constitution of India State Law will prevail in referen























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