AI Overview...
-
Bangalore Woollen Mills AIR 1968 SC 585 - The Supreme Court emphasized that the tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes depends on compliance with procedural requirements, notably the notice under Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that without such notice, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims related to industrial disputes (Sources: Hindusthan Paper Construction VS Government of India - Calcutta, Antiseptic Employees Unit, represented by the Tamilnad Press Workers Union, Madras-2, VS State of Madras, represented by its Secy. , Dept, of Industries, Labour and Housing, Madras - Madras, B. Samanta VS Government Of India - Patna, SAMTEL WORKERS UNION (BMS) VS STATE OF H. P. - Himachal Pradesh, POLYPHARMA PVT. LTD. VS KAMGAR SABHA - Bombay).
-
Jurisdiction and Procedure - The case clarified that proper termination of previous awards and adherence to statutory procedures, including notices, are essential before raising disputes. The Court examined whether the demands submitted on March 8, 1968, were preceded by a valid termination of prior awards, emphasizing procedural correctness (Sources: B. Samanta VS Government Of India - Patna, Hindusthan Paper Construction VS Government of India - Calcutta).
-
Legal Principles from Past Decisions - The judgment aligns with earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as Management of Bangalore Woollen Mills and others, reinforcing that tribunals cannot entertain disputes lacking proper procedural notices. It also discusses the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act and the importance of procedural compliance for jurisdiction (Sources: Hindusthan Paper Construction VS Government of India - Calcutta, J. K. Synthetics Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan, POLYPHARMA PVT. LTD. VS KAMGAR SABHA - Bombay, SAMTEL WORKERS UNION (BMS) VS STATE OF H. P. - Himachal Pradesh).
-
Related Cases and Broader Context - The decision references other landmark cases, including Delhi Cloth & General Mills and various judgments on industrial dispute procedures, to support the principle that jurisdiction is contingent upon compliance with statutory requirements, especially notices under Section 19(2) (Sources: J. K. Synthetics Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan, POLYPHARMA PVT. LTD. VS KAMGAR SABHA - Bombay, P C ADHIKARI VS MANAGER THE BRAITE WAITE BURN AND JOSSOP CONSTRUCTION CO LTD - Madhya Pradesh).
Analysis and Conclusion:
The core insight from AIR 1968 SC 585 is that the Supreme Court upheld the necessity of procedural prerequisites—particularly the notice under Section 19(2)—for tribunals to exercise jurisdiction in industrial disputes. Failure to adhere to these procedural steps renders the tribunal's jurisdiction invalid, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in industrial dispute resolution. This case remains a foundational authority on the procedural requirements for adjudicating industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Search Results for "Bangalore Woollen Mills Air 1968 Sc 585"
1984 0 Supreme(Cal) 186 • India - Calcutta
Umesh C.Banerjee
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in The Management of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk ... Workmen (AIR 1968 SC 585) and Thungabhadra Industries Lte. v. ... Mills Company Ltd v. ... Ghosh in support of his contentions placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Management of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company Ltd v. Workmen reported in AIR....
1992 0 Supreme(Raj) 230 • India - Rajasthan
M.B.SHARMA
. & Ors., 1992-I-LLJ-289 Management of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen & Anr. 1968 AIR SC 585; M/ss A Sundarambal vs. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu & Ors. 1 989-I-LLJ-6 1. He also placed reliance on the Delhi Cloth & General Mills vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ... In the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. ... SBC WP No. 1007/90 (Raj) dated 26-11-1990 and The Delhi Cloth & General Mills#HL_E....
2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1832 • India - Bombay
NISHITA MHATRE
Reliance is placed on the judgments in Management of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Another, AIR 1968 SC 585; Employers of Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Workmen, Shukla Manseta Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. The Workmen, 1977. ... In the case of Management of the Bangalore Wollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. ... The Apex Court by following the decision in the case of Management of the #HL_STAR....
1968 0 Supreme(Mad) 168 • India - Madras
P.S.KAILASAM
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Management of the Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd. v. ... Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 585, it has been held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any claim unless a notice under Section 19 (2) had been given. ... Sarathy, 1953-1 Lab LJ 174 : (AIR 1953 SC 53), State of Bihar v, D. N. Ganguly, 1958-2 Lab LJ 634 : (AIR 1958 SC 1018) and State of Bombay v. K. P. ... Krishna, 1960-2....
1975 0 Supreme(Pat) 187 • India - Patna
S.SARWAR ALI, NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH
Similar view was expressed in Management of the Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1968 SC 585 = (1968 Lab IC 558). ... Gan (AIR 1957 Cal 500). ... Therefore, the question that should have been tackled was whether on March 8, 1968, when the charter of demands was submitted, there has been a proper termination of the previous award, as required under Section 19 (6). ... Workmen (AIR 197....
2000 0 Supreme(HP) 118 • India - Himachal Pradesh
C.K.THAKKER, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
In Management, Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. ... Workmen and another, (AIR 1968 SC 585), the Honble Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Act, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon matters covered by the Standing Orders. ... Railway, Workers Union, (AIR 1968 SC 513), a direct question arose before a Bench of three Judges of the Honble Supreme Court relating to int....
1990 0 Supreme(Mad) 1165 • India - Madras
NAINAR SUNDARAM
Its Workmen (1969 AIR(SC) 998) which held that a strike is legal and justified if it does not violate any provision of the statute ... In Bangalore Woollen Cotton & Silks Mills v. ... In Madras Bangalore Transport Co., v. ... Workmen 1968 AIR(SC) 585, 1968 (16) FLR 242, 1967 (33) FJR 254, 1968 LIC 558, 1968 (1) LLJ 555, 1968 (1) SCR 581, 16 LawRep 256, 1964 AIR(....
2012 0 Supreme(Bom) 1052 • India - Bombay
F.M.REIS
In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the Judgments of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1968 S. C. 585 in the case of Management of the Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen and anr. and AIR 1977 S. C. 2246 in the case of M/s.
1984 0 Supreme(MP) 416 • India - Madhya Pradesh
GULAB C.GUPTA
AIR 1970 SC 282, AIR 1969 SC 513, (1968) 1 LLJ 571 (SC), AIR 1968 SC 585, AIR 1975 SC 2238, (1967) II LLJ 872. (1961) II LLJ 385 and 1978 JLJ 732 (1969) II LLJ 698 and AIR 1949 FC ... AIR 1977 SC 282 and AIR 1974 SC 960 distinguished. ... Wadke (AIR 1975 S. C. 2238 ). Similarly, the question whether an industrial dispute can be raised in respect of matters covered by the Industrial Employment (Sta....
2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 2197 • India - Bombay
A.S.CHANDURKAR
Dhore & Ors., reported in 2013 III CLR 842, Management of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen and another, reported in AIR 1968 SC 585, State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) and another Vs. K.P. ... , National Bureau of Plants Genetics Resources, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi and Anr., Akola (supra), Management of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. ... The Workmen Employed represented....
Filter by Legal Phrase
