LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Case cannot be trown out merely by mentioning wrong provision

Raj Kumar Makkad ,
  09 August 2010       Share Bookmark

Court :
Supreme Court of India
Brief :
Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Challenged thereto - Section 7, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Whether Labour Court had jurisdiction for deciding the award computing suspension/subsistence allowance under Section 33C(2), Industrial Disputes Act?
Citation :
Vijaya Bank v. Shyamal Kumar Lodh (Decided on 06.07.2010) MANU/SC/0430/2010

Labour Court constituted under section 10A(2) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and within the local limits has jurisdiction to decide any dispute regarding subsistence allowances and the Labour Court where the workman had brought the action has been constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further the appellant bank is situated within the local limits of its jurisdiction. The workman had, though, chosen to file application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act but that in Court's opinion shall not denude jurisdiction to the Labour Court, if it otherwise possesses jurisdiction. Incorrect label of the application and mentioning wrong provision neither confers jurisdiction nor denudes the Court of its jurisdiction. If Relief sought and if falls within the jurisdiction of the Court, it can not be thrown out on the ground of its erroneous label or wrong mentioning of provision.

 

 
"Loved reading this piece by Raj Kumar Makkad?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Labour & Service Law
Views : 3140




Comments