Thread Started by #debashis_pattanaik2002

Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Rejects the Petition of M/s Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, for engagement of Legal Counsel in a Industrial Dispute Matter, since there is impediment in engaging legal practitioner and as such it cannot be said that the Legislature has legislated the provision of Section 36(4) is merely for formality

Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK. In the matter of M/s Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd - Versus- Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another (W.P.(C) No.13843 of 2016 ) on 10.8.2016 has held that :-

The, constitutional validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act is under consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip –v- Their Workmen (supra) having been delivered by larger Bench consists of Hon’ble Three Judges is still holds the field.

….this Court is to see that the provision of enactment is to be followed in its strict sense and after going through the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, since there is impediment in engaging legal practitioner and as such it cannot be said that the Legislature has legislated the provision of Section 36(4) is merely for formality. It is also settled that if anything has been incorporated by the Legislature by way of legislation, there must be some purpose behind it and it cannot be said to be redundant. Moreover, we sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to see as to whether order is in accordance with the statute or not and we, after appreciating the factual aspects and legal position, found that there is no infirmity in the order impugned.

So far as the order dated 30.7.2016 is concerned, it is settled proposition that the power of review/revision/appeal is creation of statute. There is no provision in the Industrial Disputes Act which confers power to the adjudicator to review its own order and as such applying this principle the Labour Court has rightly refused to review/recall the order dated 26.3.2016 by passing the order dated 30.7.2016.

After having discussed the fact and legal position, in our considered view, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dated 26.3.2016 and dated 30.7.2016 in I.D.Case No.4 of 2015 and accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. The writ petition fails and dismissed.
2nd September 2016 From India, Bhubaneswar
Its a very simple and illustrative judgment passed by Hon'ble Orissa High Court, considering the facts of the case, Provisions of the ID Act and various judgments passed by different Hon'ble Courts.
2nd September 2016 From India, Bhubaneswar

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: pdf Ms Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd WPC 13843 of 2016.pdf (230.7 KB, 139 views)

Reply (Add What You Know) Start New Discussion

Cite.Co - is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors. Register Here and help by adding your inputs to this topic/query page.
Prime Sponsor: TALENTEDGE - Certification Courses for career growth from top institutes like IIM / XLRI direct to device (online digital learning)





About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2017 Cite.Co