Editorials       Cover Story   Letters
 Subscribe Now  Contact Us
Search  
 
Book Reviews
Case Study
Constitution of India
Cover Story
Crime File
Cyber Space
Good Living
Harvard Law School
Health & Fitness
Permanent Imprint Leading
   Cases
Know Your Judge
The Law and The Celebrity
Legal Articles
Legal Events
Law for Other Species
Law School Confidential
Legal Scanner
Legal Trotternama
Media Scan
Potpourri
Reasoning The Reasons
Street Lawyer
Study Abroad
Supreme Court Cases
Thinkers & Theory
Top Law Schools
Universal Law of Success
--------------- Print Magazine --------------
 
  May 2016
 
  April 2016
 
 
 
 
PERMANENT IMPRINT LEADING CASES
Article 226 of the Constitution of India enables the High Court to interfere with an award of the Arbitrator

Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd . v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha , AIR 1980 SC 1896

Facts: The Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. manufactured Steel Tubes in the city of Ahmedabad and was scarred by an industrial dispute. The industry started in 1960 commenced its production in 1964 and resulted in huge profits and growing workers. One day there became a confrontation which culminated in a head-on collision following an unhappy happening. A total strike ensued, whose chain reaction was a wholesale termination of all the employees, followed by a fresh recruitment of workmen, de facto breakdown of the strike and dispute over restoration of the removed workmen. This cataclysmic episode and its sequel formed the basis of section 10A of the Arbitration Act-Arbitration and award a writ petition and judgment, inevitably spiraled up to Supreme Court in two appeals viz. one by the Management and the other by Workmen's Union which was heard together and was disposed of by a common judgment. The Arbitrator held the action of the Management warranted while the High Court reversed the award and subsequently directed reinstatement.

Issues: Whether there is a right of the employer to terminate the services of his workmen under a standing order?

Decision: The orders of discharge of the workmen could not be regarded as the orders of their dismissal and were on the other hand, orders of discharge simplicitor properly passed under the Model Standing Order.

The Arbitrator could not exercise the powers conferred on a Tribunal and could not therefore interfere with the punishment awarded by the Management to the workmen.

In any case the High Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction in interfering with the punishment purporting to act in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Finally the judgment of the High Court was held as revered and the Order of the Arbitrator restored.

 
LAWYERS UPDATE
(Print Version)
Rs. 600/- per year
(Registered Post & Courier)
     
 

New Releases by UNIVERSAL's

     To avail discounts and for more details write to us at marketing.in@lexisnexis.com

Home     :      About Us     :      Subscribe     :      Advertise With Us    :       Privacy     :      Copyright     :      Feedback     :      Contact Us

Copyright © Universal Book Traders. All material on this site is subject to copyright. All rights reserved.
No part of this material may be reproduced, transmitted, framed or stored in a retrieval system for public or private
use without the written permission of the publisher. This site is developed and maintained by Universal Legal Infosolutions.
Powered by: Universal Book Traders