Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- code of civil procedure, 1908. order 13, rule 7(2): [h.g. ramesh, j] return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence though order 13 rule 7(2) of cpc provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, chapter iv of the karnataka stamp act overrides the said provision. it is not permissible for the court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under chapter iv of the stamp act. -- karnataka stamp act, 1957.[k.a. no. 34/1957]. section 33(1): [h.g. ramesh, j] return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -defendants application under order 13 rule 8 c.p.c., to impound the document.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

narayana pal, j. (1) in this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a writ petition sought to be presented by the government press employees' association represented by its general secretary as the petitioner. the proposed respondent is the government of mysore represented by the director of printing, stationary and publication in mysore, bangalore. the prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the government press named in the second column of annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same annexure. (2) the wording of the prayer as well as of paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Narayana Pal, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(10) Petition dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376587',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
			'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narayana Pal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Petition dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376587',
		(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Government Press Employees Association Bangalore Vs Government of Mysore 31 01 1961 Karhc - Citation 376587 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376587',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Order 3',
		'appealno' => 'Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC)',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 13, Rule 7(2): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision. It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. -- KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.[K.A. No. 34/1957]. Section 33(1): [H.G. Ramesh, J] Return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence  Document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -Defendants application under Order 13 Rule 8 C.P.C., to impound the document Trial Court ordering impounding of the document  Held, As the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. Though Order 13, Rule 7(2) of C.P.C., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Stamp Act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. Having regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Stamp Act, it is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter.  -  (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1961-01-31',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. </p><p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. </p><p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. </p><p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. </p><p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. </p><p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. </p><p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. </p><p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. </p><p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. </p><p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. </p><p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. </p><p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . </p><p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of Mysore',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376587',
	(int) 1 => 'government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376587/government-press-employees-association-bangalore-vs-mysore'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narayana Pal, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>(1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>(2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon and cause the production by the respondent of the order, described with member and date in the Schedule to the said application, along with similar other unspecified orders pertain to the promotions of the employee's the Government Press. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(3) In the first paragraph of the petition , it is stated that the employees who are listed in the first column of the Annexure (i.e. the persons who, according to the claim made in the affidavit, should have been promoted in preference to those mentioned in the second column of the said Annexure (c) are the persons directly concerned in the proposed writ petition and that they are members of the Association. The second paragraph of the affidavit states that the Secretary of the Association, has been authorised to file the Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Association at a meeting held on 31.5.1930. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(4) The question is whether the Employees' Association which desires to present this Writ Petition, can be said to be an aggrieved party entitled to present the petition. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(5) From the facts and the averments in the petitioner's affidavit summarised above, it is clear that the subject matter of the proposed. Writ Petition is not the grievance of the Employees' Association as a corporate body, but is made up of individual grievances of the several employee who claim that they should have been promoted in preference to certain other reason that the aggrieved employees are its members. The affidavit itself clearly states that these aggrieved employees are the persons directly concerned in the Writ petition. It is further clear that the grievances of these several employees cannot fail within the description of a class injury or an injury to a class of persons similarly situated. The highest that could be stated in this respect is that their grievances may flow from, or arise out of, one or more orders of the Government prescribing the condition of eligibility for promotion. The fact that the reason of the basis for the grievances of several persons may be the same does not convert the separate grievances of the several individuals into a common grievances of a class. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(6) The argument in support of the maintainability of the proposed petition is that the Government Press Employees As is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions, Act of 1928 to protect the interests of Rs. Members with regard to service conditions and their emoluments and that, according to Section 13 of that Act, it is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered with perpetual succession and a common seal and empowered the cause of the employees aggrieved by the impugned orders of promotions, it is entitled to represent them in all legal proceedings in respect of trade disputes and that the subject matter of the proposed Writ Petition is a trade dispute as defined by the Trade Unions Act. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has in mind the rights of a recognised trade union to inaugurate on behalf of its members with the employee under Section 28.F sought to be introduced into the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1906 by the amending Act of 1947 (which amending Act is not yet brought into force), and the position Industrial Law by virtue of which it can by responding the cause of employee s raise an industrial dispute or represent the employees before Tribunals or authorities under the industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or similar legislative enactment. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>These consideration, however, have no hearing on the question now before us. We are not dealing with any industrial dispute properly raised or properly referred for adjudication to a competent Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in or to which the Government Press Employees' Association may be said to be a party. The position in this case, as already stated, is that the grievances which are the subject-matter of the proposed Writ Petition are clearly those of certain individuals and not of the Association as a corporate body, even though the aggrieved persons might be its members in whom the Association might be vitally interested. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(7) We respectably agree with the principles stated by a bench of the Old Mysore High Court reported in Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 to the effect that the under Article 296 of the Constitution, an application for issue of a Writ must be by an aggravated party and that an Association although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under the said Article for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(8) An alternative argument has been raised that the Association having been allegedly authorised to file this Writ Petition by a resolution of the Executive Committee, the proposed Writ Petition may be regarded having been filed by it on behalf of the several aggrieved members thereof. We do not agree that such No. Authorisation entitled the Association of Employees of trade union represent a petition of this nature or is even sufficient to correct the Association or Union into a recognised agent within the meaning of order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petition is to be regarded as one made by the several aggrieved individuals and the cause title is amended by substituting or adding their names as petitioners, the petition cannot be entertained because the grievances are for the reasons already stated separate grievances of several individuals and cannot be regarded as in the nature of a class injury so as to permit the joinder as petitioners, of several members of that class. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(9) We, therefore, held that the proposed Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Government Press Employees' Association . ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(10) Petition dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Service
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Jan-31-1961
Case Number	Writ petn. No. 138 of 1961
Judge	A. Narayana Pal and ;Iqbal Hussain, JJ.
Reported in	AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant
Acts	Constitution of India - Article 226; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 3
Appellant	Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore
Respondent	Government of Mysore
Advocates:	B.K. Sreeramaiah, Adv.

Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore (31.01.1961 - KARHC) - Court Judgment