and therefore in such circumstances, the Central Government is the 'appropriate Government' to refer the industrial dispute under the Act and not the State Government. ... I deny that notification issued by Govt. of India declaring the present respondent as 'controlled industry' would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the present case pert....
In the instant case, the appropriate Government is admittedly the Central Government. The Central Government, being satisfied as to the existence of an Industrial Dispute has thought it fit to refer the parties to the CGIT. ... It is submitted that, admittedly, the dispute is an industrial dispute as defined in Section 2(k) referred by the appropriate ....
, before the Labour Court, are based on the provisions of WJ Act in relation to the wages, the said subject matter would fall within the Third Schedule of the Central ID Act and in terms of Section 10(1)(d) of the Central ID Act, the dispute could only be referred to the Industrial Tribunal and as, admittedly ... The core issue was as to whether the re....
Under Section 44(1) of the Code, the appropriate government (Central or State) may, by notification, establish one or more Industrial Tribunals. These Industrial Tribunals will also have jurisdiction over the matters under Employees’ Provident Funds Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. ... The labour court adjudicates upon the disputes that, had it not been for t....
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 vide complaint case no. 12 of 2015 is maintainable. ... Industrial Tribunal No.1 set aside the punishment imposed on the complainants/respondents illegally but since this Court is holding that the tribunal was not having the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute ....
It was further held that the Labour Court exercises its wide jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, but such jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously. ... in respect of the dispute may have commenced: Section 10 of the Act of 1947 which deals with Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts and Tribunal. Section 10 reads as under: "10. Referen....
company 5[or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government 6[***] or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning 7[8[9[10[a Dock Labour Board established under Section 5-A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 or 11[the Industrial ... to such dispute would be the Central Gove....
In the present case, he again reiterates that there being no notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA, the Industrial adjudicator would not get any jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ... The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Act referred the existing industrial dispute between the workmen concerned and the Corporatio....
to be a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act. ... in respect of the dispute may have commenced: [Provided also that where the dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for that Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribuna....
dated 11/09/2015, had referred the industrial dispute for adjudication of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGIT’). ... If there is any dispute with regard to the type of work, the dispute has to be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). ... Therefore, the issue before the learned Labour#HL_E....
The perusal of proviso to section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reveals that the dispute, where the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be within the competence of that Government to refer the dispute to a labour court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government. Thus, the Central Government can refer the dispute to a labour court or Industrial Tribunal, constituted by the State Government, but otherwise the Industr....
"Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of the services of S/Shri Jogesh Prasad, Gyandhand Singh and Sivbachan Singh with the management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s BCCL is justified? 4. Thereafter, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour has referred the industrial dispute for adjudication before the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad with the following Schedule:
It is true that under Section 10 of the Act where the appropriate government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the dispute has to be referred by the Central Government to the Labour Court or to the Industrial Tribunal.
It is also not a case where the labour Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Under Section 115, High Court may exercise revisional jurisdiction and if the High Court finds that subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, it may pass such order as it may deed fit. It is not the case ....
9. Now on the basis of rival contentions of the parties the question arises for consideration of this Court as to whether on account of establishment of Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under Act 1985 which has jurisdiction to decide the dispute of service matter of respondent No. 2 the jurisdiction of Central Industrial Tribunal/labour Court would stand excluded and barred or not and as to whether the Central Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court still have jurisdiction to ....
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
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top