Goa Trade & Commercial Workers’ v. The State of Goa, through Secretary, Labour
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of this Order the petitioners are not pressing this petition. All the contentions of both the petitioners and the respondents are kept open before the State Authority and the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule stands discharged. (S.J. VAZIFDAR)…
Judgment
Mr. M.S. Sonak and Mr. D.G. Pangam, Advocates for Petitioners. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Ms. W. Coutinho, Government Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. P.K. Rele, Senior Advocate with Mr. G. Sardessai, Advocate for Respondent 3. Mr. C.V. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. N. Sardessai, Advocate for Respondents 4 to 20. Coram : S.J. VAZIFDAR AND P.V. HARDAS, JJ. Date : 15th April 2003. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Vazifdar, J.) The petitioner-Union is at liberty to make an appropriate representation to the State Government of Goa, being the appropriate Government in this case, within a period of two weeks from today, with regard to the dispute, which the State Government shall, after hearing the respondents, decide whether to refer the same or not.
The exercise of whether to refer the industrial dispute or not shall be done by the State Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid representation. - 3 -
In the event the State Government decides to refer the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, the Industrial Tribunal shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year thereafter.
In view of this Order the petitioners are not pressing this petition. All the contentions of both the petitioners and the respondents are kept open before the State Authority and the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule stands discharged. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) JUDGE. (P.V. HARDAS) JUDGE. ed’s.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Trade Unions Act, 1926.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Apr 2003. The bench was S VAZIFDAR, P V HARDAS.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.