CASE ANALYSIS ON: MUMBAI KAMGAR SABHA, BOMBAY V. M/S ABDULBHAI FAIZULLABHAI & ORS. (1976) BY: ANMOL SINGHAL
CASE ANALYSIS ON: MUMBAI KAMGAR
SABHA, BOMBAY V. M/S ABDULBHAI FAIZULLABHAI & ORS. (1976)
AUTHORED BY:
ANMOL SINGHAL,
B.A. LL.B.
Student,
Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University)
New Law College, Pune, Maharashtra
TABLE OF INDEX
|
S. No.
|
Contents
|
|
1.
|
List of Cases
|
|
2.
|
List of Abbreviations
|
|
3.
|
Preface
|
|
4.
|
Summary of Facts
|
|
5.
|
Issues
|
|
6.
|
Arguments
|
|
7.
|
Judgment
|
|
8.
|
Relevance of Judgment in
Present Times
|
|
9.
|
Analysis &
Conclusion
|
|
10.
|
Bibliography
|
LIST OF CASES
|
S. No.
|
Case Law
|
Citation
|
|
1.
|
Dhabolkar
|
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 306
|
|
2.
|
Nawabganj Sugar Mills
|
[1976] 1 S.C.C. 120
|
|
3.
|
Messrs. Ispahani Ltd. v.
Ispahani Employees’ Union
|
[1960] 1 S.C.R. 24
|
|
4.
|
Bombay Co.
|
[1964] 7 S.C.R. 477
|
|
5.
|
Jardine Henderson
|
[1962] Supp. 3S S.C.R.
382
|
|
6.
|
Howrah-Amta Light Rly.
|
[1966] ll LLJ 294, 302
|
|
7.
|
Tulsidas Khimji
|
[1962] I LLJ 435
|
|
8.
|
Churakulam Tea Estate
|
[1969] 1 SCR 931
|
|
9.
|
Ghewar Chand
|
[1969] 1 S.C.R. 366
|
|
10.
|
Pandurang
|
[1975] II LLJ 345
|
|
11.
|
Satyadhan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi
|
AIR 1960 SC 941: (1960) 3 SCR 590
|
|
12.
|
Talluri Venkata Seshayya v.
Thadvikonda Kotiswara Rao
|
1937 BOMLR 317
|
|
13.
|
Rural Litigation And Entitlement
Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
|
1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169, AIR
1985 SUPREME COURT 652, 1985 UJ (SC) 594, (1985) 2 CURCC 70, 1985 (2) SCC 431
|
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
|
Abbreviation
|
Meaning
|
|
S.C.R.
|
Supreme Court Reports
|
|
I.L.R.
|
Indian Law Reports
|
|
A.I.R.
|
All India Reporter
|
|
LLJ
|
Labour Law Journal
|
|
S.C.C.
|
Supreme Court Cases
|
|
I.S.C.R.
|
Indian Supreme Court
Reports
|
|
I.L.J.
|
Indian Labour Journal
|
PREFACE
The case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors.,
decided by the Supreme Court of India on March 10, 1976, stands as a pivotal
moment in the landscape of labor law in India. This assignment aims to provide
a detailed analysis of the judgment, focusing on its implications for workers'
rights and the interpretation of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
The backdrop of this case involves a
significant number of workers employed in small businesses in Bombay who sought
to claim bonuses that had been traditionally paid prior to the enactment of the
Bonus Act. The abrupt cessation of these payments led to a dispute that brought
forth critical questions regarding the nature of bonuses and the rights of
workers to claim them based on custom and usage rather than profit.
In this judgment, the Supreme Court
addressed several key issues, including the applicability of the doctrine of
res judicata in industrial disputes and the standing of workers' unions to
represent their members in legal proceedings. The court's reasoning highlights
the balance between statutory provisions and customary practices, reflecting
the complexities of industrial relations in a rapidly changing economic
landscape.
This analysis will explore the
court’s interpretation of the law and its broader implications for labor
unions, employers, and employees. By examining the judicial reasoning and the
outcomes of the case, this assignment seeks to illuminate the enduring impact
of this ruling on labor rights and industrial jurisprudence in India.
Through this exploration, we aim to
foster a deeper understanding of the legal principles at play and their
relevance in promoting fair labor practices. The insights gained from this case
will not only enrich our comprehension of the legal framework governing labor
relations but also underscore the importance of safeguarding workers' rights in
an evolving industrial context.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The case involves a locality in the
city of Bombay called Nag Devi, which is studded with small hardware
businesses. These hardware establishments, numbering over a thousand, employ a
considerable number of workmen, around 5,000 in total, although each unit has
(barring four) less than the statutory minimum of 20 workmen. Prior to 1965,
the hardware merchants in the Nag Devi locality were making ex-gratia payments
to their workers by way of bonus as a gesture of goodwill, and over the years,
these payments became a regular practice. However, in the year 1965, the
hardware merchants abruptly stopped making the ex-gratia bonus payments to
their workers, leading the workers, represented by the Mumbai Kamgar Sabha (the
Union), to set up a claim for bonus, alleging that the industry (referring
collectively to the hardware establishments) had made considerable profits.
The dispute over the payment of bonus
was referred to a Board of Arbitrators under Section 10A of the Industrial
Disputes Act[1], which
rejected the workers' demand for bonus. The dispute was then referred to an
Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal dismissed the workers'
demand for bonus, holding that it was barred by the principle of res judicata,
based on the Arbitration Board's decision. The Tribunal also held that the
bonus paid earlier was based on tradition and custom, and therefore, did not
fall within the scope of the Bonus Act of 1965, which was a complete code.
Aggrieved by the Tribunal's award, the Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, representing the
workers, appealed against the decision before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
The key issues in this case are:
1.
Whether
the workers' union (Mumbai Kamgar Sabha) had the locus standi (legal standing)
to file the appeal, since the actual parties to the dispute were the workers
and the employers.
2.
Whether
the claim for bonus for the years 1966-69 was barred by the principle of res
judicata (a matter already decided cannot be re-litigated), since the
Arbitration Board had earlier rejected the workers' demand for bonus for the
year 1965.
3.
Whether
the workers' claim for bonus was based on custom or condition of service,
rather than on profits, and hence not covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965[2].
4.
If
the workers' claim was based on custom or condition of service, whether the
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 still barred such a claim, as it was meant to be a
comprehensive or complete code on the subject of bonus.
5.
Whether
the Industrial Tribunal had the competence and jurisdiction to entertain this
industrial dispute, as argued by the respondents.
6.
Whether
the principle of constructive res judicata (a matter that could and should have
been raised earlier is barred) applied in this industrial dispute context.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS FROM
PETITIONER'S SIDE:
- Locus Standi of the Union:
? The Union (Mumbai Kamgar Sabha) is
representing the collective interests of the numerous workers involved in the
dispute, even though the workers themselves are not named as individual
parties.
? In industrial disputes, unions play a
recognized representational role, and a liberal approach should be taken to the
issue of locus standi, rather than a narrow, technical one.
? Procedural requirements should not be
allowed to defeat the substantive justice of the workers' claim. The essence of
the matter is the dispute between the workers and the employers, which the
Union is representing.
- Claim for Customary/Condition of
Service Bonus:
? The workers' claim for bonus is not
based on profits, but on the long-standing custom and practice of the employers
providing such payments, which had become an implied term of the workers'
conditions of service.
? The terms of reference from the
government specifically asked the Tribunal to examine if payment of bonus had
become a custom or condition of service in these establishments.
? The workers' pleadings clearly
articulated that the bonus claim was founded on custom and condition of service,
not on profits.
? Precedents have recognized customary
bonus and contractual bonus as distinct from profit-based bonus, and these
forms of bonus are permissible under industrial law.
- Scope of the Bonus Act:
? The Bonus Act is not a complete and exhaustive
code covering all forms of bonus. It is primarily focused on regulating
profit-based bonus.
? The history, object, and provisions
of the Bonus Act indicate that its main purpose was to simplify and standardize
the calculation of profit-based bonus, not to eliminate other forms of bonus
not based on profits.
? The Act's recognition of customary
bonus through provisions like Section 17[3]
suggests that it did not intend to supersede or prohibit such forms of bonus
outside the Act's framework.
? Denying the workers' claim for
customary/condition of service bonus merely because it is not covered by the
Bonus Act would be contrary to the constitutional goals of protecting the
welfare of the working classes.
ARGUMENTS FROM
RESPONDENT'S SIDE:
- Lack of Locus Standi of the
Union:
? Technically, the Union (Mumbai Kamgar
Sabha) cannot be the appellant, as the real parties in the dispute are the
individual workers, not the Union.
? The Union is not a party to the
dispute and does not have the locus standi to file this appeal. The workers
should have been impleaded as individual parties.
? The cause title of the case
incorrectly names the Union as the appellant, which is a procedural defect that
cannot be overlooked.
? Precedents like Dhabolkar[4] and Nawabganj
Sugar Mills[5] have held
that in such cases, the Union cannot be the appellant, and the workers
themselves should be the parties.
- Res Judicata:
? The workers' claim for bonus has
already been rejected by the Board of Arbitrators in 1967, and this decision
operates as res judicata, barring the workers from raising the same claim
again.
? The principles of res judicata, as
laid down in the Pandurang[6] case,
apply to industrial disputes as well. The workers cannot re-litigate the same
issue under a different guise.
? Sections 10A, 18[7],
and 19(3)[8] of the
Industrial Disputes Act support the binding nature of the prior arbitral award
on the workers.
- Scope of the Bonus Act:
? The Bonus Act is a complete and
exhaustive code dealing with the entire subject of bonus payments.
? Whatever the species of bonus, if it
is not covered by the provisions of the Bonus Act, it cannot be awarded by the
Tribunal.
? The Act's exclusion of establishments
with less than 20 workers, like the respondents' firms, means that the workers'
claim for bonus falls outside the scope of the Act and is not maintainable.
? The decision in Ghewar Chand[9]'s case has
held that the Bonus Act is a comprehensive law, and employees cannot resort to
the Industrial Disputes Act to claim bonus outside the Act's framework.
? The Bonus Act's focus on profit-based
bonus indicates that it does not recognize or provide for other forms of bonus,
such as customary or contractual bonus.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court adopted a
magnanimous and inclusive approach in addressing the issue of the workers'
union's standing to pursue this appeal. Recognizing the union's representative
capacity as the collective voice of the workers, the court held that the Mumbai
Kamgar Sabha could effectively champion the interests of the aggrieved
employees, despite the workers themselves being the actual parties to the
dispute. The judiciary underscored that the representation of workers through
their unions is a commendable and progressive development in the realm of
industrial jurisprudence, aligning with the principles of collective bargaining
and the advancement of labor relations.
Turning to the doctrine of res
judicata, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about its rigid application
in the context of industrial disputes, which are governed by specialized
methodologies and the overarching consideration of preserving industrial
harmony. The court distinguished the present case from the precedent of Pandurang,
where res judicata was invoked, noting that the current dispute involved a
fresh matter before the Tribunal, rather than the same claim being resurrected
under a different guise. This nuanced approach reflects the court's cognizance
of the unique dynamics and pragmatic considerations that shape the resolution
of labor-management conflicts.
In its comprehensive examination of
the Bonus Act of 1965, the Supreme Court concluded that the legislation was
primarily focused on regulating profit-based bonus schemes. Delving into the
historical context, underlying objectives, and the overall scheme of the Act,
the court determined that the statute did not intend to override or prohibit
other forms of bonus, such as those rooted in customary practices or
contractual agreements between employers and employees. This judicial
recognition of the diversity of bonus structures, extending beyond the
traditional profit-sharing model, aligns with the constitutional vision of
safeguarding the welfare of the working classes.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court set
aside the Industrial Tribunal's dismissal of the workers' claim and directed
the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter on its merits, considering the workers'
assertion of entitlement to customary or service-based bonus. While allowing
the appeal, the court ordered the parties to bear their own costs,
demonstrating a balanced and pragmatic approach in addressing the complex
issues raised in this industrial dispute. The judgment stands as a testament to
the Supreme Court's progressive and contextual interpretation of labor laws,
harmonizing the interests of workers and employers while upholding the
constitutional ideals of social justice.
RELEVANCE OF JUDGMENT IN PRESENT TIMES
- Expansive Interpretation of
Locus Standi and Worker Representation:
The court adopted a liberal and
inclusive approach to the issue of locus standi, holding that the workers'
union could effectively represent the collective interests of the workers, even
though the workers themselves were the actual parties to the dispute. The court
emphasized that in the realm of industrial relations, the representation of
workers through their unions is a welcome and progressive development, as it
aligns with the principles of collective bargaining and the advancement of
industrial jurisprudence.
This expansive interpretation of
locus standi remains highly pertinent even in contemporary times, as it
facilitates access to justice for workers and amplifies their collective voice.
The court's recognition of the union's representative capacity is in harmony
with the constitutional mandate of safeguarding the welfare of the working
classes. However, the court's cautionary note on the need to be mindful of
inter-union rivalries and to scrutinize the representative legitimacy of the
union in certain cases is also a prudent consideration, reflecting the court's
nuanced understanding of the practical complexities that may arise in
industrial disputes.
- Distinguishing
Customary/Contractual Bonus from Profit-based Bonus:
The court engaged in a detailed
examination of the Bonus Act of 1965, delving into its historical context,
underlying objectives, and the overall scheme of the legislation. Based on this
comprehensive analysis, the court concluded that the primary focus of the Act
was the regulation of profit-based bonus, and it did not intend to supersede or
prohibit other forms of bonus, such as those rooted in customary practices or
contractual agreements between employers and employees.
This judicial distinction between
different types of bonus schemes remains highly relevant in the present-day
industrial relations landscape, as the concept of bonus has evolved beyond the
traditional profit-sharing model. Modern workplaces often incorporate a diverse
array of bonus structures, including attendance-based bonuses,
productivity-linked incentives, and performance-driven rewards, among others.
The court's emphasis on interpreting statutes in alignment with the
constitutional vision of protecting worker welfare is a commendable approach
that continues to hold significance.
However, it is important to note that
the court's observations may require a more nuanced examination in light of
subsequent amendments to the Bonus Act, which have expanded its scope and
coverage. The impact of these legislative changes on the court's reasoning
warrants careful consideration, as the legal landscape may have shifted since
the time of this judgment. Nevertheless, the core principle of recognizing the
diversity of bonus schemes and avoiding a narrow, formalistic interpretation of
statutes remains a valuable guidepost for judicial decision-making in the realm
of industrial relations.
- Cautious Approach to Res
Judicata in Industrial Disputes:
The court expressed reservations
about the wholesale application of the doctrine of res judicata in the context
of industrial disputes, acknowledging the unique methodologies and
considerations that govern this specialized domain of law. The court
distinguished the present case from the precedent of Pandurang, where res
judicata was applied, on the grounds that the current dispute involved a fresh
matter before the Tribunal, rather than the same claim being raised under a
different guise.
The court's skepticism towards a
rigid application of res judicata in industrial disputes remains highly
relevant in contemporary times. Industrial relations often require a more
flexible and pragmatic approach, focused on resolving disputes and maintaining
industrial harmony, rather than being constrained by the technical rules of
civil litigation. The court's observations on the importance of exploring
non-litigative mechanisms for dispute resolution, such as negotiation and
conciliation, align with the growing emphasis on alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) methods in the field of industrial jurisprudence.
Principle of res judicata in contemporary Indian laws:
Section 11[10] of The
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[11] defines
the term as, “No Court shall try any suit
or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been
directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties,
or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the
same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in
which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally
decided by such Court.
Explanation I.—The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has
been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior
thereto.
Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, the competence of a
Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of
appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation III.—The matter above
referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either
denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV.—Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground
of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter
directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V.—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly
granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to
have been refused.
Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public
right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all
persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be
deemed to claim under the persons so litigating .
[Explanation VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a
proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any
suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a
proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding
and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII. —An
issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent
to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit,
notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to
try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently
raised.]”. To
explain in simple words, this provision enacts that once a matter has been
conclusively adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, no party shall
be allowed to relitigate it in subsequent proceedings.
In the case of Satyadhan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi[12] AIR
1960 SC 941: (1960) 3 SCR 590, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that,
“the principle of Res Judicata is based on the need of giving finality to the
judicial decisions.”
Talluri Venkata Seshayya v. Thadvikonda Kotiswara Rao[13] 1937 BOMLR 317: The Privy Council held that finding of gross negligence by the trial
court was different from the finding of intentional suppression of the
documents suggesting collusion on the part of plaintiffs as res judicata.
Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh[14] 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169, AIR
1985 SUPREME COURT 652, 1985 UJ (SC) 594, (1985) 2 CURCC 70, 1985 (2) SCC 431: The Supreme Court decided that the
writ petitions filed are not disputes between specific parties but are public
interest litigations. The main issue is whether mining in the area should be
allowed or stopped to ensure social safety and a safe environment for people.
Even if there was a final decision, in such cases, it's challenging to apply
the principle of Res Judicata, which prevents the same issue from being tried
again.
This progressive and contextual
approach adopted by the Supreme Court in interpreting labor laws demonstrates a
commendable effort to balance the interests of workers and employers, while
upholding the constitutional vision of social justice. The principles discussed
in this landmark judgment continue to hold relevance in the present-day
industrial relations landscape, though they may necessitate nuanced application
in light of subsequent legislative and jurisprudential developments.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court's ruling in the
case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v.
Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors. emerges as a watershed moment in the
intricate tapestry of labor law in India. This decision, rich in nuance and
progressive thought, has indelibly shaped the rights of workers and the
resolution of industrial disputes.
To begin with, the court's
broad-minded perspective on the locus standi of workers' unions is both
laudable and harmonizes beautifully with the principles laid down in previous
landmark judgments. In earlier cases like Dhabolkar
and Nawabganj Sugar Mills, the
Supreme Court had asserted that the true parties to an industrial dispute—the
individual workers—ought to take the stage as appellants, sidelining the union.
Yet, in this pivotal case, the court embraced a more inclusive viewpoint,
acknowledging the union's indispensable role as a representative voice
advocating for the collective rights of the workforce. These cases were held
inapplicable, as the Court observed that the decisions cited were founded on
the jurisdiction under Article 226[15]
of the Constitution, which is more rigid, whereas industrial disputes require a
more liberal approach.
This progressive stance resonates
with the court's prior ruling in Messrs.
Ispahani Ltd. v. Ispahani Employees' Union[16],
where it spotlighted the union’s crucial function in nurturing industrial
relations and underscored the necessity for a liberal reading of locus standi.
The court's rationale here indicates a transformative shift in judicial insight
regarding the intricate dynamics of labor disputes and the pivotal contribution
of unions in articulating workers' collective interests. This case laid down
the tests for inferring the existence of an implied agreement for payment of
puja bonus.
The case The Graham Trading Co. (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen[17] dealt with the essential ingredients to
be established when payment of bonus as customary or traditional, is claimed.
Moreover, the court's meticulous
deliberation on the application of res judicata within the realm of industrial
disputes merits attention. In a previous judgment involving Pandurang, the Supreme Court had invoked
this doctrine to prevent the re-litigation of identical issues. However, in the
current case, the court adeptly distinguished the specifics, concluding that
the matter at hand presented a novel situation for the Tribunal, rather than
merely resurrecting an old claim under a new façade. The Court expressed doubt
about the extension of the doctrine of constructive res judicata to industrial
law, which is governed by special methodology of conciliation and adjudication.
This discerning approach underscores
the court's awareness of the specialized methodologies and practical realities
that govern the resolution of labor-management strife, as evidenced by rulings
like Howrah-Amta Light Railway[18] and Tulsidas Khimji[19].
The court's advocacy for exploring non-litigious avenues—such as negotiation
and conciliation—aligns seamlessly with the increasing focus on alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) in industrial jurisprudence, a trend illuminated in
cases like Jardine Henderson[20] and Churakulam Tea Estate[21].
The case Jardine Henderson was discussed along with other rulings to show
that the judiciary has recognized customary or contractual bonus as permissible
in industrial law.
Another salient feature of this
judgment is the court's thorough examination of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
By probing into its historical backdrop, foundational objectives, and
overarching framework, the Supreme Court elucidated that the Act primarily aims
to regulate profit-based bonus schemes. This interpretation echoes the court's
earlier decisions in Ghewar Chand and
Satyadhan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi,
where it was determined that the Bonus Act constitutes a complete code
governing the domain of bonus payments.
Ghewar Chand’s case
was distinguished, as the Court held that it related only to profit bonus under
the Industrial Disputes Act and did not cover customary or contractual bonus.
However, the court ventured beyond
this established understanding, recognizing that the Act does not seek to
preclude or invalidate other forms of bonuses, including those arising from
customary practices or contractual arrangements between employers and
employees. This judicial differentiation among various bonus schemes is
profoundly relevant in today’s industrial relations landscape, where the
concept of a bonus has transcended the conventional profit-sharing paradigm.
The court’s commitment to
interpreting statutes in alignment with the constitutional mandate of
safeguarding worker welfare, as seen in Rural
Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, is a
praiseworthy approach that retains its significance. Though the court's
insights may necessitate further examination in the context of subsequent
amendments to the Bonus Act, the foundational principle of acknowledging
diverse bonus schemes while steering clear of a narrow, formalistic
interpretation remains a pivotal guidepost for judicial deliberation in the
sphere of industrial relations.
In summation, the Supreme Court's
judgment in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay
v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors. stands as a beacon of the judiciary's
progressive and contextually rich interpretation of labor laws. The court's
thoughtful engagement with issues of locus standi, the nuanced application of
res judicata, and the expansive interpretation of the Payment of Bonus Act have
collectively paved the way for a precedent that continues to resonate in
today’s industrial relations milieu. The principles articulated in this
landmark ruling, viewed in conjunction with earlier case law, vividly
illustrate the court's unwavering dedication to harmonizing the interests of
workers and employers, all while championing the constitutional tenets of
social justice and worker welfare.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) Aditi Prabhune, Res Judicata: Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, LEGAL
SERVICES INDIA (Sept. 4, 2024, 7:34 PM), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2646-res-judicata-section-11-of-civil-procedure-code-1908.html#:~:text=Principle%20and%20Scope%20of%20Section,proceedings%20upon%20the%20same%20question
2) MY LAWQUESTIONS, What is Res Judicata?
(with picture) (mylawquestions.com) (last visited Sept. 6, 2024)
3) Bhumika Indulia, Bom HC
| Will strict rules of pleadings as applicable for suits filed under CPC be
applicable under Industrial Disputes Act as well? HC elaborates, SCC ONLINE (Sept.
4, 2024, 9.15 PM), Bom HC | Will strict rules of pleadings as applicable for
suits filed under CPC be applicable under Industrial Disputes Act as well? HC
elaborates | SCC Times (scconline.com)
4) Ramesh Chandra, "The Role of
Unions in Collective Bargaining: A Study of Selected Cases," The Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jan., 1987), pp. 277-289.
5) Debi S. Saini, "Collective
Bargaining and the Law in India," The Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Jan., 1990), pp. 277-290.
6) Anita Agnihotri, "Judicial
Approach to Industrial Disputes in India," The Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jan., 1997), pp. 307-319.
7) Namrata Chugh, "Evolving
Principles of Industrial Jurisprudence in India," Indian Law Review, Vol.
3, No. 2 (2019), pp. 147-162.
[7] The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S.18, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1947 (India)
[14] Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169, AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 652, 1985 UJ (SC) 594, (1985) 2 CURCC 70, 1985 (2) SCC 431