Back
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Kisto Bouri, s/o Late Kanahai Bouri – Appellant
Versus
Chief Manager (Mining) Project Officer, Govindpur Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Gauri Shankar Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Civil Review No. 99 of 2022 and Civil Review No. 101 of 2022 have been filed seeking review of the order/judgment dated 02.12.2021 passed in W.P. (L) No. 4842 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7252 of 2019 whereby the writ petitions have been disposed of upon a concession recorded by the counsel.
2. The order under Review is a common order in connection with four writ petitions being W.P. (L) No. 4842 of 2019, W.P. (L) No. 7058 of 2019, W.P. (L) No. 7085 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7252 of 2019. By this order, two review petitions arising out of W.P. (L) No. 4842 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7252 of 2019 are being disposed of.
3. So far as other two review petitions being Civil Review No. 44 of 2022 arising out of W.P. (L) No. 7085 of 2019 and Civil Review No. 100 of 2022 arising out of W.P. (L) No. 7058 of 2019 are concerned, the same have also been allowed by this court vide order dated 12.07.2024 on the ground that the learned counsel who had given concession on behalf of the workmen in W.P.(L) No. 7085 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7058 of 2019 did not hold the Vakalatnama and therefore concession of the learned counsel cannot bind the workmen. Consequently, t
Concessions made on questions of law are not binding on parties, while those on facts are, establishing the principle of jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Section 33C(2) is more comprehensive than Section 33C(1). Section 33C(2) applies not only to cases of settlement or award or cases under Chapter VA of the Act, but to other cases as well. By a proces....
The authority's order under Section 33-C(1) was valid as the employer failed to dispute the existence of a relevant settlement, maintaining wage parity between contractual and regular employees in li....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a pre-existing right and entitlement of the employees as a prerequisite for entertaining a Claim Petition under Section 33 (C....
The government’s reference of an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(c) is administrative and cannot be quashed unless the existence of an employer-employee relationship is clearly proven to be no....
The court emphasized the power of the tribunal to regulate its own procedure and the principle that technical and procedural lapses should not hinder substantial justice.
A judgment contrary to the evidence or without evidence is perverse. Concession of counsel on such facts and law does not bind the party.Master-servant relationship.
The definition of 'Workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes those in supervisory roles who exceed statutory salary limits, impacting jurisdiction over disputes.
The Labour Court's jurisdiction is limited to the terms of reference, and it may determine the issue of whether an individual is a 'workman' as defined in law within that framework.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act can only be considered a dispute if a specific demand has been made by the workmen, and any refere....
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
