.....the cours.of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or produced any material to controvert the finding of fact recorded by the labour court with regard to working days, and in view of the fact that the workman had only worked for 207 days in the calendar year prior to the date of his termination, the labour court has rightly held that the management was not required to comply with the provisions of section 25f of the act. however, learned counsel has argued that before terminating the services of the workman during the period of probation no notice was given by the management. therefore, the termination of services of the workman was illegal. i do not find any merit in this submission as this aspect has been considered by the labour court and it was held that as per provisions of certified standing order no notice was required to be issued to the probationer workman before terminating his services. it was further held that the termination of services of the workman was simpliciter as is clear kumar vinay 2013.09.24 15:24 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh c.w.p.no.9992 of 1998 -3- from termination order.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....fixed in the press note issued by the state government under rule 67(a) of the displaced persons (c&r) rules, 1955 (for short 'rules of 1995').facts of the case are hardly in dispute. petitioner was entitled for allotment of an additional area to the extent of 1-9 standard acres, so as to make good the deficiency in the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and to satisfy his unsatisfied claim. the claim of the petitioner was considered by respondent no.3. however, while passing jawala ram 2013.10.05 10:44 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.6836 of 1992 [2].the order dated 8.4.1963 (annexure p-1).he expressed his inability to pass any order on the application of the petitioner because the same was to be examined by the managing officer as per the procedure prevalent at that time. accordingly, he forwarded the application of the petitioner to the managing officer, muktsar. feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed his revision petition before respondent no.2, who dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 5.3.1990 (annexure p-2) observing that since the petitioner did not apply in time, he would not be entitled for any further allotment. notice.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of 2013 -3- receipt of certified copy of this order. at this stage, mr.aman sharma, advocate appears for mr.r.s.khosla, asstt. solicitor general and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and the newly added respondent and waives service on them. learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply one copy of the petition to mr.aman sharma, advocate during the cours.of the day. mr.sharma undertakes to forward the writ petition together with a copy of this order to the respondents for necessary action. in case, the petitioner is found medically fit then he may be offered appointment in accordance with law if all other eligibility conditions are satisfied. disposed of with the above directions. order dasti. (rajiv narain raina) 19.09.2013 judge manju mittal manju 2013.09.20 17:30 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....ipc as under:- in crl. rev. no.2369 of 2011 crl. rev. no.2369 of 2011(o&m) -2- accused rajinder singh sr.offence sentence in default no under section 326 ipc r.i for 2 years and fine of r.i for 6 months 1 rs.2000/- under section 323/34 ipc ri for 3 months and fine of ri for 1 month 2 rs.200/- accused mohinder singh sr.offence sentence in default no under section 323 ipc r.i for 6 months and fine of r.i for 2 months 1 rs.300/- under section 326/34 ipc ri for 1½ years and fine of r.i.for 3 months 2 rs.1000/- accused bhola singh sr.offence sentence in default no under section 323/34 ipc r.i for 3 months and fine of r.i for 1 month 1 rs.200/- under section 326/34 ipc ri for 1½ years and fine of r.i.for 3 months 2 rs.1000/- complainant-gurinderjit singh had filed a complaint under sections 326/324/447/34 ipc on the averments that he is resident of village bhasaur. he is running a std/pco at bus stand bhasaur. he has two brothers namely gulwinder singh alias lucky and avtar singh, who are unmarried. on 3.11.2000, at about 4.45 p.m the complainant was going to his fields to collect green fodder for his cattle. when he reached near gurudwara sahib, a maruti car came from the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for a period of 10 years besides payment of fine of `1000/-, and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. brief facts of the case are that pw-4-j. kaur (full name of the prosecutrix has been concealed) who is daughter of appellant, teja singh, moved complaint (ex-pa) to the senior superintendent of police, bathinda against her father alleging that she was being sexually harassed by her own father, i.e.the appellant. the superintendent of police, bathinda, directed the deputy superintendent of police, surinder kaur (pw-1) to hold an inquiry. after completion of the inquiry, report (ex.pb) was submitted by the deputy superintendent of police, surinder kaur, wherein she recommended registration of a case against the vandana 2013.10.10 10:34 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl. appeal no.s-306-sb of 2001 2 appellant. therefore, fir no.142 dated 25.05.1998 for the offences punishable under sections 354 and 506, ipc, was registered at police station, kotwali, bathinda. it is apposite to mention that during the inquiry, the deputy superintendent of police had also recorded the statement of m. kaur (name concealed).pw-3 another.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on the sole ground that the arguments urged before me are as if a first appeal is being argued where a person has put his defence; though the fact of the matter is that there was no defence of the petitioner before the departmental authorities and therefore the proceedings before this court cannot be converted into proceedings before an enquiry officer where the petitioner seeks to argue his case afresh on the basis of a defence which does not exist in the enquiry proceedings. also, as the subsequent narration in the judgment will show that even on facts the petitioner has been grossly misleading the court with respect to arguments which have been urged. i must in this regard put on record my appreciation for the thoroughness in which the counsel for the respondent no.1 has rebutted the arguments of the petitioner and assisted the court.4. i must also before proceeding with the judgment put on record that after conclusion of arguments, counsel for the petitioner wanted to file written submissions pursuant to an earlier order passed by a learned single judge of this court, which i did not agree to as i have heard the counsel for the petitioner, and thus, i do not need any.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....his arguments only to the effect that while awarding compensation to the respondent-claimants, the learned tribunal has altogether ignored the fact that the respondent-claimants are receiving monthly family pension of rs.1300/- per month under the provisions of the employee state insurance act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1948') and, therefore, they are 3 not entitled for receiving any compensation as per the provisions of section 53 read with section 61 of the act of 1948. the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent no.1 while deposing before the learned tribunal has admitted this fact that she is getting a family pension of rs.1300/- per month but despite this admission of the respondent no.1, the learned tribunal illegally awarded the compensation to the claimants for which they were not entitled. learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in a. trehan versus m/s associated electrical agencies and anr. reported in air1996sc1990and has argued that the impugned judgment and award may be quashed and set aside. per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- claimants has supported the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....tribunal had considered the exemption granted for carrying persons in the tractor trolley at the time of religious occasion but has overlooked the fact that no premium for carrying passengers has been taken by the insurance company. therefore, insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. learned counsel for the appellant has cited judgment passed by the full bench of this court in the matter of bhav singh versus smt. savirani & ors.i.l.r.[2007].m.p., 1302, in which, it has been held that the insurer is not liable for any bodily injury unless liability is fastened on insurer under provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of insurance policy. considering the fact that the tractor trolley was not insured for carrying passengers and no premium was taken for the passengers by the insurance company, learned tribunal is not justified in passing the award against the insurance company. the findings of learned tribunal with regard to issue no.2(b) are perverse. therefore, appeal is allowed. the impugned award so far as it relates to liability of insurance company to pay compensation is set aside. the claimants are entitled to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the government taken with regard to the allotment of plots out of discretionary quota. there was not even a proposal or an offer of allotment. in fact, the offer was to follow after the requisite affidavit(s) had been submitted by each of the petitioners within fifteen days from the date of issue of memoranda dated 18.05.1987 (annexures p-1 to p-4).to the effect that they did not posses any other plot/house in urban estate, jind, in their own name or in the name of their spouses or any of the family members dependent upon them and that they were never allotted a plot or land in any urban estate out of haryana government's discretionary quota in their or their spouses' name or in the name of any of their family members.the petitioners though claim to have submitted the requisite affidavits on different dates, i.e., 15.06.1987 and 25.05.1987 in the office of chief administrator, haryana urban development authority, manimajra, u.t.chandigarh, but no letter of allotment was ever issued in their favour. petitioners also did not even deposit any money. thus, no concluded contract came into being. the proposals for allotment of plots out of discretionary quota, however, were.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for a period of six months, whereas co-accused amolak singh, amarjit kaur and gurmit kaur were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. the brief facts of the prosecution case are that fir in the present case has been registered on the basis of statement of complainant bagga singh, who stated that his daughter sarabjit kaur was married with accused mohinder singh alias babu on 19.02.2000. he gave dowry according to his status. after 8-9 days of the marriage, his daughter came to him and told her that accused mohinder singh, father-in-law amolak singh, sister-in-law amarjit kaur wife of swinder singh and sister-in-law gurmit kaur wife of sardul singh, were taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry and for not bringing a scooter in the dowry. the complainant talked with nahar singh and bir singh, his relatives. then, complainant along with above-said persons took sarabjit kaur to her matrimonial house and made understand mohinder singh and other accused that more dowry according to their capacity would be given and they should not maltreat sarabjit kaur. it is also alleged that on 16.03.2000 at about 9.00/10.00 a.m., sarabjit kaur informed complainant that her in-laws were.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT