Legal Reference Library

The third schedule of ID Act provides for which type of matters fall within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals. It provides as under: MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 1. Wages, including the period and mode of payment; 2. Compensatory and other allowances; 3. Hours of work and rest intervals; 4. Leave with wages and holidays; 5. Bonus, profit sharing, provident fund and gratuity; 6. Shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders; 7. Classification by grades; 8. Rules of discipline; 9. Rationalisation; 10. Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment; and 11. Any other matter that may be prescribed. See Also :  Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Okha Mandal Majoor Sangh  [Gujarat High Court, 25-04-2017]

In Jayakantham & Others v. Abaykumar, the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arises from a judgment rendered by a Single Judge of Madras High Court. Dismissing second appeal, Single Judge confirmed judgment of Principal District Judge, by which an appeal against judgment of Sub-Judge was dismissed. Trial court decreed suit for specific performance instituted by Respondent against Appellants. Appellants submitted that this is a fit and proper case where specific performance ought not to be ordered and a decree for compensation in lieu thereof would meet the ends of justice. Section 20(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 indicates that, jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary. Yet, discretion of Court is not arbitrary but is “sound and reasonable”, to be “guided by judicial principles”. Exercise of discretion is capable of being corrected by a Court of appeal in hierarchy of appellate Courts. Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of Act contains a stipulation of tho...

In Tej Bahadur Thapa Vs. Branch Manager of District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Calcutta High Court held that under Article 227 of the constitution, the High Court has Power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals. Thus even though the Consumer Protection Act mentions appeal against order of the State Forum to be done before the National Forum, the the revisional application is very much maintainable before High Court, particularly, when the Court is, prima facie, satisfied on the merit of the case that the finding arrived at by the State Commission is perverse.

High Court of Delhi National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited MANU/DE/2834/2016 19.10.2016 Arbitration Once the parties have approached certain court for relief under Arbitration Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings Present application filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking to explain delay of 296 days in filing Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) to challenge Award dated 24th February, 2015 of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) in disputes between NHAI and Respondent, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd + SIPL (HSCL) arising out of a contract dated 18th July, 2005 for construction of a four lane highway. It is stated by NHAI that it received a copy of the Award dated 24th February, 2015 only on 27th February, 2015 by courier and that was the date from which the period of limitation for the purpo...

Directing the State police to “learn a lesson” from the reported murder of a 24-year-old woman from Tirunelveli due to non registration of a complaint of abduction lodged by her father in September last, the Madras High Court Bench here on Thursday stressed the need for registering First Information Reports (FIR) irrespective of territorial jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran passed the order on a habeas corpus petition filed by C. Gnanaiah (50) of Sankarankoil Taluk in Tirunelveli district on August 10 this year seeking a direction to Tirunelveli police to save his daughter G. Anbu Stella, a lab technician, from the clutches of a Pastor Millan (50) of Tharuvai in Tirunelveli district. Enquiries made by the judges with R. Thirugnanam, Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli city, and V. Vikraman, Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, revealed that the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the office of Tirunelveli Deputy Inspector General of P...

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held that a complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection (CP) Act can be filed only on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers, having a common interest or a common grievance and seeking the same/identical relief against the same person. It has also been made clear that in a class action suit (complaint) instituted under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers. Answering a reference to it, the full bench comprising NCDRC president D.K. Jain, members V.K. Jain and B.C. Gupta made the following observations: A complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be filed only on behalf o...

The Supreme Court in Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. Etc., has held that the high court, while hearing a second appeal, has no jurisdiction to remand a case to the trial court, especially when no party to the appeal raised this ground before the first appellate court or/and the high court as to why the remand of the case to the trial court is called for and nor there was any finding recorded on this question by the first appellate court. In the instant case, the High Court, setting aside the judgment/decree of the courts below, had remanded the cases to the trial court for fresh trial on merits by permitting the parties to amend the pleadings, to frame additional issues and to adduce the evidence. The Bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre observed that no party to the appeals complained at any stage of the proceedings that the trial in the suits was unsatisfactory which caused prejudice to them requiring remand of the cases ...

The case before the bench comprising of A.K. Sikri & R.K Agarwal,JJ was whether the Court of Sessions is empowered to take the cognizance of offence when a similar application to this effect was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate while committing the case to Sessions Court, taking cognizance of offence only under Section 306 IPC and specifically refusing to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Court observed that normally, such a course of action would not be permissible. But referring to the present case, the court held that the power of Magistrate in refusing to take cognizance against the appellants is revisable by a superior Court, the Court of Sessions in this case, either on the revision petition that can be filed by the aggrieved party or even suo moto by the revisional Court itself. Also, it was not a case wherein the opportunity was not given to the other party to file a reply at the sessions Court against the order of Cognizance and the Cou...

The Supreme Court M.K. Indrajeet Sinhji Cotton Pvt Ltd. Vs. Narmada Cotto Coop. Spg. Mills Ld. & Ors has held that Registrar of Cooperative Societies has no jurisdiction to decide whether the suit is tenable for want of notice or not. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices S.A. Bobde and Amitava Roy observed that that a question whether a suit is tenable under Section 167 of the Co-operative Societies Act for want of notice under the said provision is a question within the exclusive competence of a Civil Court. A company was refused permission to continue the suit filed by it before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the ground that the suit is not tenable because notice of its institution required by Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Though the Single Bench of the High Court quashed the order of Registrar, the Division Bench on appeal restored that order. The company approached Apex Court. The court observed th...

A Suit or a proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, the Supreme Court has held in BALRAM YADAV VS. FULMANIYA YADAV. Division Bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman set aside Chattisgarh High Court judgment which had held that a negative declaration with respect to matrimonial status was outside the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The Referring to relevant provisions of Family Courts Act, Hindu Marriage Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, the Bench held “Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a Suit or a proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, since under Section 8, all those jurisdictions covered under Section 7 are excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. In case, there is a dispute on the matrimonial sta...

The Supreme Court M.K. Indrajeet Sinhji Cotton Pvt Ltd. Vs. Narmada Cotto Coop. Spg. Mills Ld. & Ors has held that Registrar of Cooperative Societies has no jurisdiction to decide whether the suit is tenable for want of notice or not. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices S.A. Bobde and Amitava Roy observed that that a question whether a suit is tenable under Section 167 of the Co-operative Societies Act for want of notice under the said provision is a question within the exclusive competence of a Civil Court. A company was refused permission to continue the suit filed by it before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the ground that the suit is not tenable because notice of its institution required by Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Though the Single Bench of the High Court quashed the order of Registrar, the Division Bench on appeal restored that order. The company approached Apex Court. The court observed th...

In an important pronouncement, the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia & Anr. (C.A. No. 10643-44/2010) has examined the provisions of S. 62 (2) of the Copyright Act along with S. 134 (4) of the Trademarks Act vis-a-vis S. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The pronoucement is extremely important since it seeks to curb the abuse of S. 62 (2) and 134 (4) to file suits on the basis of 'branch offices' in places where cause of action has otherwise not arisen. While interpreting the above provisions, the Supreme Court has held as under: "9. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contains the provisions under section 20 with respect to institution of the suits where defendant resides or cause of action arose. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus : “Section 20 - Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. -- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a...