NRI Legal Services - An Overview

If the law permits the workmen to ventilate their grievances at a later stage under section 33-A of the 1947 Act and section 23 of the 1950 Act there can be no logical reason why the law should not permit them to do so at the earlier stage under section 33 of the 1947 Act and section 22 of the 1950 Act. (3) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale, but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell.

Reliance is placed on the decision in The Queen v. So far as Advocates, click here, the first point is concerned an "evacuee" is defined as follows in the Bihar Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949: (3) The Bihar Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, is not applicable to wakf property and to the beneficial interest of the applicants therein. It is also clear that under section 33-A of the 1947 Act the authority is to adjudicate upon the complaint "as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it" and under section 23 of the 1950 Act the authority is to decide the complaint "as if it were an appeal pending before it".

We are unable to accept this contention as correct for reasons which we Advocates (web) now proceed to state. On the basis of these admitted facts the Trial Court erroneously held that the receipt-cum-agreement is an enforceable contract and on that finding decreed the suit which was affirmed by the High Court. This clearly indicates that the authority to whom the complaint is made is to decide both the issues, namely (1) the fact of contravention and (2) the merits of the act or order of the employer.

In the present case, the corporate entity has been used to conceal the real transaction of transfer of mining lease to a third party for consideration without statutory consent by terming it as two separate transactions the first of transforming a partnership into a company and the second of sale of entire shareholding to another company. These provisions quite clearly indicate that the jurisdiction of the authority is not only to decide whether there has been a failure on the part of the employer to obtain the permission of the authority before taking action but also to go into the merits of the complaint and grant appropriate reliefs.

It is thus clear that the doctrine of lifting the veil can be invoked if the public interest so requires or if there is allegation of violation of law by using the device of a corporate entity. County Council of West Riding of Yorkshire(1). it is submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents and of the intervener that the scope of section 33 of the 1947 Act and of section 22 of the 1950 Act is precisely the same as that of section 33-A of the 1947 Act and section 23 of the 1950 Act.

The argument is that the authority concerned may under section 33 of the 1947 Act and section 22 of the 1950 Act grant by way of imposing conditions the same relief which it can grant Advocates (click here) to the workmen under section 33-A of the 1947 Act and section 23 of the 1950 Act. It is submitted that the purpose of labour legislation being to maintain industrial peace and restore amity and goodwill between the employer and his workmen, it should be the attempt of the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal at every stage to try to resolve all disputes which are connected with the matter which is brought before it.

Finally, it Advocates (click here) is urged that whenever an authority is vested with the power to do or not to do an act it must be regarded as having a discretion and 161 1256 that in exercise of such discretion the authority must be presumed to be vested with power to impose suitable conditions. It being undisputed that these three remained in India throughout, it is contended that the property at the date of the notification was the property of these three sons and not of Kumar Rani and that, therefore, the Bihar Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, has no application to the facts.

This complaint is required to be made in the prescribed manner. The argument is that the two last mentioned sections were enacted only in order to afford an opportunity to the workmen to do what they had been prevented from doing at the earlier stage by reason of the employer taking the law into his own hands and taking action against them without previously obtaining the sanction of the appropriate authority to do so. The real transaction is sale of mining lease which is not legally permitted.

Form DD prescribed by rule 51-A of the Industrial 1253 Disputes (Central) Rules, 1947, framed under section 38 of the 1947 Act, like Form E prescribed under section 35 of the 1950 Act, requires the complaining workmen to show in their petition of complaint not only the manner in which the alleged contravention has taken place but also the grounds on which the order or the act of the management is challenged. Thus, the doctrine of lifting the veil has to be applied to give effect to law which is sought to be circumvented.