Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the proceedings in the workmen's industrial dispute could be stayed or suspended under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 until consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction was obtained.
Analysis: The pending proceedings were at the stage of adjudication of long-standing industrial disputes, while the statutory bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was attracted only when an award or quantified liability was sought to be enforced or executed. The Court noted that the rehabilitation scheme was not placed on record, the workmen had remained out of employment for many years, and the proceedings had been pending since 1985. Relying on the principle that adjudication may proceed even where execution may later be subject to the statutory bar, the Court held that the Labour Court ought not to have been prevented from deciding the disputes on merits.
Conclusion: The suspension of the labour proceedings was unjustified and the matters were required to proceed to adjudication; the section 22 bar could be considered, if necessary, only at the stage of implementation or execution of any award.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar adjudication of an industrial dispute and operates, if at all, when enforcement or execution of a quantified monetary liability is sought.