On 4-8-1995 the Conciliation Officer admitted the dispute in conciliation. N 287; Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v. It appears that individual employees are deliberately kept out under this chapter. The declaration would operate on the strike or lock-out from the commencement of the strike or lock-out and it is not that any transformation is brought about by the declaration. According to Shri Nerlekar, considered from any angle and considering any date, the strike which commenced on 10-7-1995 and which continued upto 19-8-1995 was rightly declared illegal by the Labour Court though it was withdrawn on 19-8-1995. It earned net profit of Rs119.
Three rows of barbed wire run across the angles at the top of the R. We find from the orders of the income-tax authorities as well as from the Tribunal that none of them have bothered to bring proper facts on record. Historical, current and forecast prices, together with commentaries, to help you track price fluctuation and understand price drivers and trends. These two sections or the whole Chap. There is a third and greater hurdle in the path way of the legality of the strike. Similar would be the position with regard to the lock-out covered by Sub-section 2.
The Labour Court will be well within its legitimate jurisdiction to decide the Reference to grant or not to grant a declaration that strike commenced was an illegal strike though it was withdrawn before such declaration. P Act, in full, below: 24. A very peculiar situation has arisen. Similarly a strike which commenced or continued during the pendency of conciliation proceeding under the B. Even lock-out in similar circumstances would meet with the same fate.
The said settlement was filed before the Labour Court. The report includes other market data like key players in the Industry segment along with their contact information and recent developments. His reliance on the said ruling is wholly misplaced as the Division Bench was not seized of the point which is being canvassed by Shri Patel. Mr Pandia has evinced that within a month, all the preparatory work should be completed. There are three distinct contingencies which the Labour Court is empowered to consider, viz. Mr G P Goenka 2. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed with no orders as to cost.
We answer the question accordingly. It would be altogether another and different aspect that under S. There is no way out for the Union from the stigma of the illegality of the strike from 10-7-1995 to 19-8-1995 as it is tightly surrounded and gheraoed by three clear-cut illegalities, and it was therefore, rightly declared as illegal by the Labour Court. According to the learned advocate, the strike commenced and continued from 10 July, 1995 was in contravention of S. The consequence in the present case was that by withdrawing this strike earlier, by virtue of the deeming provision, the strike must be held not to have been illegal.
Reference of Labour Court for declaration whether strike or lock out is illegal: 1 Where the employees in any undertaking have proposed to go on strike or have commenced a strike, the State Government or the employer of the undertaking may make a reference to the Labour Court for a declaration that such strike is illegal. Section 25 5 , however, takes away the sting of the illegality for the purposes of the Act and the consequences will be spared for the union and for the employees as it will be deemed not to be an illegal strike for the purposes of the Act. Shri Patel the learned Advocate for the petitioners has taken a serious exception to the Judgment and Order of the Labour Court granting declaration to the Company that the strike was illegal for the period from 10-7-1995 to 19-8-1995. Sri Nerlekar also pointed out that the Conciliation Officer had received strike notice on 27 July, 1995 and the conciliation proceedings were deemed to have been commenced from the date of receipt of such notice by Conciliation Officer and the strike continued even after the conciliation proceeding commenced on 27 July, 1995, the continuation of the strike was illegal even under S. The project at Lote-Parshuram, near Chiplun in Ratnagiri District of Maharashtra was set up with technical collaboration from Magnox Incorporation of U. Considering the purpose for which the provision has been brought into the statute book, we find that such a narrow construction cannot be put on Sub-sec.
Sri Patel the learned advocate for the petitioners has taken a serious exception to the judgment and order of the Labour Court granting declaration to the company that the strike was illegal for the period from 10 July, 1995 to 19 August, 1995. Any strike which is commenced or continued without giving to the employer notice of strike in the prescribed form, or within 14 days of the giving of such notice would be an illegal strike. He further submitted that as the strike notice was given on 17-7-1995 there could not be any strike during the period for 14 days from 17-7-1995 to 31-7-1995. However, it was not disputed on behalf of the Revenue that the expenditure incurred on foundation for fixing the plant and machinery would form part of the cost of plant and machinery and the assessee would be entitled to depreciation thereon. The company is in the process of enhancing its capacity of alkyl phenols by an additional 1,000 metric tonnes per year.
He further submitted that as the strike notice was given on 17 July, 1995 there could not be any strike during the period for 14 days from 17 July, 1995 to 31 July, 1995. Copyright © 2001 Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Ltd. It further appears that in view of the said settlement the strike was withdrawn on and from 21 August, 1995. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee once again pressed its claim of depreciation and development rebate on the enhanced cost of assets involved. The continuation of the illegally commenced strike after the strike notice during the period of 14 days is per se and ex-facie illegal. Significantly the definition is not an inclusive definition. The strike which was commenced on 10-7-1995 continued even during the period of the strike notice and therefore, the said strike cannot be said to be legal merely because the Union had given subsequently notice of strike on 17-7-1995.
Government approved the collaboration with General Electric Co. It is difficult to visualize that those who saw their error even before the declaration was made by the Labour Court, and wanted to rectify their error and resume duty or start the work of the establishment, should be punished because they did not continue the strike or lockout until the Labour Court made a declaration that the strike or lockout was illegal. The union can withdraw the strike but thereby it cannot divest the Labour Court of its jurisdiction to decide and declare that the strike commenced was illegal under the Act. The illegality would be from the date of the commencement till the date of its continuation and withdrawal. The Labour Court is bound to decide the Reference and reach the logical end in accordance with law, unless of course, the whole Reference is withdrawn and is not prosecuted. The present capacity of acetone and phenol in the existing plant is around 34,000 metric tonnes per year and 20,400 metric tonnes per year, respectively. Shri Patel further submitted that at the most the strike could be declared illegal from 10-7-1995 to 17-7-1995 but not upto 19-8-1995.
According to him, no such declaration could be granted by the Labour Court once the strike was withdrawn before such declaration under S. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. The ratio of the aforesaid four decisions would clearly apply to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and, accordingly, the assessee would be entitled to depreciation and development rebate at the enhanced cost of the assets involved. We strive to deliver value and delight our customers for the money invested by them. It appears to us that the Revenue was very much obsessed by the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was for levelling the vast area of the land which it had taken on long lease. I do not agree with the submissions of Shri Patel that the Labour Court ceases to have jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act to declare the strike to be illegal, if such strike was withdrawn during the pendency of the proceedings and before grant of such declaration by the Labour Court. In my considered view there is no merit in the petition.