Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA V/S HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED & ANOTHER , decided on Friday, April 9, 1999.
[ In the High Court of Bombay, WRIT PETITION NO.1852 OF 1999 . ] 09/04/1999
Judge(s) : D.K. TRIVEDI
Advocate(s) : Shri K.K. Singhavi with Ms. Meena Doshi . Shri P.K. Rele .
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page


Judgments that may be related:-


  M/s. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. Versus Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha,   13/06/2016.  

  State of Haryana & Another Versus The Presiding Officer & Another ,   29/09/2015.  

  Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Limited Versus Sunflag Iron & Steel Mazdoor Sabha & Another,   09/07/2015.  

  Hindustan Unilever Ltd. & Another Versus State of Assam & Others,   19/09/2012.  

  Indian Smelting & Refining Company Limited Versus Mr. Anthony D'Almeida & Another,   03/05/2011.  

  Chittranjan S/o. Devidas Wasnik Versus Managing Director, Vasantrao Naik Vimukt Jati & Nomedic Tribe Development Corpn. (Ltd.) & Another,   19/04/2010.  

  Hindustan Lever (Ppf) Workers' Union Versus State of Assam & Others,   11/02/2010.  

  M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Others Versus Contract Laghu Udyog Kamgar Union, Malad, Mumbai & Others ,   17/06/2009.  

  Workmen Through Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Versus Hindustan Levers Ltd. ,   16/07/2008.  

  Hindustan Lever Limited Versus Hindustan Lever Employees Union & Others ,   06/12/2006.  

  Vasu Dev Singh & Others Versus Union of India & Others ,   07/11/2006.  

  KAY KAY EMBROIDERIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS CLOTH MARKETS AND SHOPS BOARD ,   30/08/2006.  

  Kay Kay Embroideries P. Ltd. Versus Cloth Markets & Shops Board & Others ,   30/08/2006.  

  MAHARASHTRA AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ,   25/10/2005.  

  VIBHA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ,   25/10/2005.  

  M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. Versus Mr. G.S. Baj & Another ,   21/10/2005.  

  GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LTD VERSUS G.S. BAJ ,   20/10/2005.  

  Vibha Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others ,   02/09/2005.  

  Messrs Burroughs Wellcome (I) Limited Versus Jagannath Namdeo Patel & Others ,   12/07/2005.  

  Madura Coats Employees Union Versus Madura Coats Ltd. & Another,   30/03/2005.  

  Hindustan Lever Limited Versus Hindustan Lever Employees Union & Another,   21/12/2004.  

  Hindustan Lever Ltd. Versus Industrial Tribunal & Another ,   27/09/2004.  

  Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha & Another Versus Hindustan Lever Limited & Another ,   03/09/2004.  

  Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Versus Estrella Batteries Ltd. & Others ,   20/09/2003.  

  Biddle Sawyer Ltd. & Another Versus Chemical Employees Union, Mumbai ,   20/06/2003.  

  Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. Bombay & Another Versus Adil K. Patel ,   30/11/2001.  

  Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt. Ltd. & another Versus Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & others ,   12/10/2001.  

  Federation of Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Anr. Versus Secretary State Contract Labour Advisory Board and Another ,   22/06/2001.  

  V. Ramanathan Versus Hindustan Lever Limited, Mumbai & Another ,   27/04/2001.  

  Raigad Mazdoor Sangh Versus Vikram Ispat & Others ,   08/03/2001.  

  Modistone Limited & others Versus Modistone Employees' Union & another ,   02/03/2001.  

  Hindustan Lever Limited Versus Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha ,   22/01/2001.  

  Workmen of Nilgiris Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited and Another Versus State of Tamil Nadu and Others ,   12/12/2000.  

  CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE ,   04/04/2000.  

  Madura Coats Ltd. Versus G.S. Baj, Member, Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra & Anr. ,   08/03/2000.  

  MUKAND LTD. VERSUS MUKAND STAFF AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ,   30/11/1999.  

  State of U.P. Versus Rajendra Kumar,   28/09/1999.  

  MODI STONE EMPLOYEES UNION VERSUS MODI STONE LIMITED ,   27/11/1998.  

  Ahmedabad Electricity Company Versus Electricity Majdoor Sabha,   02/09/1998.  

  Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Versus State of U.P.,   30/07/1998.  

  Kec International Ltd. Versus Kamani Employees' Union & Anr. ,   17/04/1998.  

  Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Versus Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Another ,   29/08/1996.  

  Tata Memorial Centre Versus Sanjay Sharma ,   14/08/1996.  

  Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Versus CIPLA Limited and others ,   09/08/1996.  

  Hindustan Lever Limited Versus Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha & another ,   12/04/1996.  

  Divisional Railway Manager Versus General Secretary, Dakshina Railway Casual Labour Union & Others ,   26/09/1995.  

  Hindustan Lever Employees Union Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra & Goa and others ,   29/09/1994.  

  Hindustan Lever Limited Versus Dongre B. N. and Others ,   26/07/1994.  

  Hindustan Lever Versus Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha ,   28/09/1993.  

  ICI India Limited Versus Presiding Officer, National Industrial Tribunal and Others ,   10/02/1993.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1999 (4) LJ 704"  







    Case Law Referred :Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha v. Hindustan Lever Limited 1998 1 C.L.R. 857 (Para 5).     P.C.The petitioner Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha has filed this writ petition and challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal Mumbai passed below Exhibit U-18 in Reference (IT) No.39/97.2.During the hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Shri Singhavi took me through the relevant documents attached to the petition and also the order under challenge. He highlighted the provisions of section-36 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the order passed by the Commissioner of Labour dated 3-5-1997 referring the dispute for adjudication as per the schedule to the said order of reference. As per the order passed by my brother Justice A.P. Shah in Writ Petition No.884 of 1998 filed by the petitioner Mazdoor Sabha the Tribunal was directed to dispose of by giving six months time by directing the Industrial Tribunal to decide the Reference in accordance with law without being influenced by the interim order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.284 of 1998. 3.The Industrial Court has on considering the pleadings framed issue No.2 which reads as under: Whether the First Party Company proves that the Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha has no locus standi to represent the employees concerned in the present Reference. An affidavit is filed by Shri Sameer Nagarajan the Employee Relations Manager of the company opposing the petition and also annexing certain documents as filed before the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No.39 of 1997 between the company and the concerned employee accepting the fresh settlement under section 2-P of the Industrial Disputes Act with the company. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent company Shri Rele has also while supporting the order contended that no case is made out by the petitioner which requires to be interfered with while exercising my writ jurisdiction. Before the Industrial Court in the said proceedings on behalf of the respondent company an application seeking directions for production of documents is filed and it is prayed that the Registrar of Trade Unions Calcutta be directed to furnish the documents viz. the annual returns from 1975 till 1998 filed in the office of the Registrar Trade Union as required under section 28 of the Trade Unions Act 1926; the certificate of registration issued to Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha and the list of membership of the Sabha from 1975 till date. 4.The said application was opposed by the petitioner Mazdoor Sabha and it was prayed that in view of the decision and the documents that have been sought for are not given for the purpose of entertaining the application and accordingly prayed that the application for seeking directions be rejected. The Industrial Tribunal has after considering the said application and the contentions raised before him allowed the said applications Exhibits C-9 C-20 and C-21 and directions are issued to the Registrar of Trade Unions Calcutta for furnishing relevant documents as per his operative order and further directions to petitioner Mazdoor Sabha to furnish list of the employees who are its members from 1975 till date. 5.Shri Singhavi the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 1 C.L.R. page-857 (Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha v. Hindustan Lever Limited) on the point of individual settlement and the effect of such settlement.6.Without expressing anything on merits in respect of the contentions raised before me and on examining the order under challenge as the order passed by the Industrial Court on an application for production of documents is an inter-locutary order as observed earlier that in view of the issue framed the parties are required to lead evidence and when application for production is filed and the same is granted while exercising my writ jurisdiction and more particularly the order under challenge being an inter-locutary order I am not inclined to interfere with the said order while exercising writ jurisdiction. Hence the petition is dismissed. However as observed earlier the Industrial Court is directed to decide the Reference expeditiously within six months. In view of the order passed for production of documents the Registrar of Trade Union Calcutta as well as Bombay be intimated and informed that the required information as per the order be furnished as expeditiously as possible within four weeks and if the requisite information is not furnished within that time the Industrial Court will not wait for such record and the Industrial Court to proceed with the Reference in accordance with law. 7.With these observations the writ petition is summarily dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs. A copy of the order be sent to the Industrial Court incorporating the directions to forward a copy to the Registrar of Trade Unions Calcutta as well as Bombay.