Back
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
K. M. Ramesh, Secretary Labour Law Practitioners' Association – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
(Order made by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Section 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No.24 of 2010) published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 15.09.2010 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal.
This Writ Petition is filed to declare Sections 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act No.24 of 2010) published vide Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 15.09.2010 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal.
2. We have heard Mr.S.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.D.Ranndranathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
3. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the relevant records of the case, this Writ Petition would require no further orders from us, for the following facts:-
3.1 As far as Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes
The amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act allowing certain executive officers as Presiding Officers do not violate constitutional mandates regarding judicial independence.
Rule 13 which provided that State Government may make amendment to Rules as may be deemed necessary in consultation with High Court was also deleted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the retirement age of Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals, based on the conflicting provisions of the Kerala Service Ru....
A District Judge who is appointed as Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would continue to be in Judicial Service under the Control of the High Court and would not be entitled to co....
Ministerial staff of specialized judicial tribunals performing duties equivalent to administrative heads in district courts are entitled to pay parity under the principle of equal pay for equal work,....
Nomenclature of the petition or the nature of relief sought for is not the only determining factor, but the nature of power available to be invoked before the High Court is one such important guiding....
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 court ruled that a workman who performs supervisory duties and earns above the statutory salary limit does not qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, rendering the Tribunal's a....
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
