https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105298 Article 226 interference was declined against a settlement-cum-award accepted by more than 90% of workmen and approved through the Industrial Court process. A minority challenge by non-recognised unions was treated as unsuitable for extraordinary writ jurisdiction, particularly where the settlement had been acted upon and converted into an award. The broader constitutional objections to provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and the alleged breach of Article 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were not examined because they had become academic in the proceeding. The petition was dismissed and the settlement and award were left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:39:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105298 Article 226 interference was declined against a settlement-cum-award accepted by more than 90% of workmen and approved through the Industrial Court process. A minority challenge by non-recognised unions was treated as unsuitable for extraordinary writ jurisdiction, particularly where the settlement had been acted upon and converted into an award. The broader constitutional objections to provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and the alleged breach of Article 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were not examined because they had become academic in the proceeding. The petition was dismissed and the settlement and award were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105298