Semantic Analysis by spaCy
M.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma
Decided On : Oct-03-2012
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 33', (int) 1 => 'the Industrial Disputes Act' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '3/10/12', (int) 1 => '29' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Labour Court', (int) 1 => 'Corporation', (int) 2 => 'Corporation', (int) 3 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 4 => 'Corporation', (int) 5 => 'Corporation', (int) 6 => 'Corporation', (int) 7 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 8 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 9 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 10 => 'Corporation', (int) 11 => 'Labour Court' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khandwa', (int) 1 => 'C.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1947', (int) 1 => 'October, 2012', (int) 2 => 'the same day i.e.on 29th October, 2012', (int) 3 => 'December, 2012' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shri', (int) 1 => 'Rajendra Menon', (int) 2 => 'Vy/-' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1043287', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-10-03', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.1922/12 3/10/12 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.</p><p> Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.</p><p> Challenging the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Khandwa in an ex parte proceedings held under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the petitioner Corporation to pay to the respondent employee a sum of Rs.1,73,797/- on various counts, this writ petition has been filed.</p><p> Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that an ex parte proceeding has been held without prior notice to the respondent and by pointing out financial status of the respondent Corporation and the reorganization which resulted in certain administrative difficulties, Shri P.K.Mishra emphasizes that the default should be condoned and liberty be granted.</p><p> Shri A.K.Gupta has filed a detailed reply and submits that inspite of notice as the petitioner did not appear, the Labour Court has not committed any error in proceeding ex parte and, therefore, no interference can be made.</p><p> I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.</p><p> Matter pertains to settlement of post-retiral claims of the respondent workman who has been granted voluntary retirement.</p><p> As determination of the monetary benefit has been done ex parte, even though the material available shows that notice was served on the respondent Corporation inspite thereof, none appeared.</p><p> The fact remains that respondent Corporation had been facing certain wind up process and the possibility of the notice being misplaced in the office cannot be ruled out.</p><p> Under such circumstances, interest of justice would be met if proper enquiry into the claim of workman is ordered and, thereafter, the liabilities of the Corporation determined.</p><p> In view of the above, the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Labour Court is quashed and the matter is referred to the Labour Court with the following directions.</p><p> On the parties appearing before the Labour Court on 29 th October, 2012, and, thereafter, the Corporation filing its return and written statement to the claim of the respondent workman on the same day i.e.on 29th October, 2012, the Labour Court shall proceed to conduct an enquiry and after hearing all concerned, a decision be taken on or before 15th December, 2012.</p><p> With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.C.C.</p><p> as per rules.</p><p> (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Kailash Chandra Verma', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1043287' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 33', (int) 1 => 'the Industrial Disputes Act' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '3/10/12', (int) 1 => '29' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Labour Court', (int) 1 => 'Corporation', (int) 2 => 'Corporation', (int) 3 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 4 => 'Corporation', (int) 5 => 'Corporation', (int) 6 => 'Corporation', (int) 7 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 8 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 9 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 10 => 'Corporation', (int) 11 => 'Labour Court' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khandwa', (int) 1 => 'C.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1947', (int) 1 => 'October, 2012', (int) 2 => 'the same day i.e.on 29th October, 2012', (int) 3 => 'December, 2012' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shri', (int) 1 => 'Rajendra Menon', (int) 2 => 'Vy/-' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1043287', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-10-03', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.1922/12 3/10/12 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.</p><p> Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.</p><p> Challenging the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Khandwa in an ex parte proceedings held under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the petitioner Corporation to pay to the respondent employee a sum of Rs.1,73,797/- on various counts, this writ petition has been filed.</p><p> Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that an ex parte proceeding has been held without prior notice to the respondent and by pointing out financial status of the respondent Corporation and the reorganization which resulted in certain administrative difficulties, Shri P.K.Mishra emphasizes that the default should be condoned and liberty be granted.</p><p> Shri A.K.Gupta has filed a detailed reply and submits that inspite of notice as the petitioner did not appear, the Labour Court has not committed any error in proceeding ex parte and, therefore, no interference can be made.</p><p> I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.</p><p> Matter pertains to settlement of post-retiral claims of the respondent workman who has been granted voluntary retirement.</p><p> As determination of the monetary benefit has been done ex parte, even though the material available shows that notice was served on the respondent Corporation inspite thereof, none appeared.</p><p> The fact remains that respondent Corporation had been facing certain wind up process and the possibility of the notice being misplaced in the office cannot be ruled out.</p><p> Under such circumstances, interest of justice would be met if proper enquiry into the claim of workman is ordered and, thereafter, the liabilities of the Corporation determined.</p><p> In view of the above, the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Labour Court is quashed and the matter is referred to the Labour Court with the following directions.</p><p> On the parties appearing before the Labour Court on 29 th October, 2012, and, thereafter, the Corporation filing its return and written statement to the claim of the respondent workman on the same day i.e.on 29th October, 2012, the Labour Court shall proceed to conduct an enquiry and after hearing all concerned, a decision be taken on or before 15th December, 2012.</p><p> With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.C.C.</p><p> as per rules.</p><p> (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Kailash Chandra Verma', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1043287' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 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
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 33', (int) 1 => 'the Industrial Disputes Act' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '3/10/12', (int) 1 => '29' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Labour Court', (int) 1 => 'Corporation', (int) 2 => 'Corporation', (int) 3 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 4 => 'Corporation', (int) 5 => 'Corporation', (int) 6 => 'Corporation', (int) 7 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 8 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 9 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 10 => 'Corporation', (int) 11 => 'Labour Court' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khandwa', (int) 1 => 'C.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1947', (int) 1 => 'October, 2012', (int) 2 => 'the same day i.e.on 29th October, 2012', (int) 3 => 'December, 2012' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shri', (int) 1 => 'Rajendra Menon', (int) 2 => 'Vy/-' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1043287', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-10-03', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.1922/12 3/10/12 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.</p><p> Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.</p><p> Challenging the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Khandwa in an ex parte proceedings held under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the petitioner Corporation to pay to the respondent employee a sum of Rs.1,73,797/- on various counts, this writ petition has been filed.</p><p> Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that an ex parte proceeding has been held without prior notice to the respondent and by pointing out financial status of the respondent Corporation and the reorganization which resulted in certain administrative difficulties, Shri P.K.Mishra emphasizes that the default should be condoned and liberty be granted.</p><p> Shri A.K.Gupta has filed a detailed reply and submits that inspite of notice as the petitioner did not appear, the Labour Court has not committed any error in proceeding ex parte and, therefore, no interference can be made.</p><p> I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.</p><p> Matter pertains to settlement of post-retiral claims of the respondent workman who has been granted voluntary retirement.</p><p> As determination of the monetary benefit has been done ex parte, even though the material available shows that notice was served on the respondent Corporation inspite thereof, none appeared.</p><p> The fact remains that respondent Corporation had been facing certain wind up process and the possibility of the notice being misplaced in the office cannot be ruled out.</p><p> Under such circumstances, interest of justice would be met if proper enquiry into the claim of workman is ordered and, thereafter, the liabilities of the Corporation determined.</p><p> In view of the above, the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Labour Court is quashed and the matter is referred to the Labour Court with the following directions.</p><p> On the parties appearing before the Labour Court on 29 th October, 2012, and, thereafter, the Corporation filing its return and written statement to the claim of the respondent workman on the same day i.e.on 29th October, 2012, the Labour Court shall proceed to conduct an enquiry and after hearing all concerned, a decision be taken on or before 15th December, 2012.</p><p> With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.C.C.</p><p> as per rules.</p><p> (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Kailash Chandra Verma', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1043287' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 33', (int) 1 => 'the Industrial Disputes Act' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '3/10/12', (int) 1 => '29' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Labour Court', (int) 1 => 'Corporation', (int) 2 => 'Corporation', (int) 3 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 4 => 'Corporation', (int) 5 => 'Corporation', (int) 6 => 'Corporation', (int) 7 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 8 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 9 => 'the Labour Court', (int) 10 => 'Corporation', (int) 11 => 'Labour Court' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khandwa', (int) 1 => 'C.C.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1947', (int) 1 => 'October, 2012', (int) 2 => 'the same day i.e.on 29th October, 2012', (int) 3 => 'December, 2012' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shri', (int) 1 => 'Rajendra Menon', (int) 2 => 'Vy/-' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1043287', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'M.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-10-03', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.1922/12 3/10/12 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.</p><p> Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.</p><p> Challenging the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Khandwa in an ex parte proceedings held under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the petitioner Corporation to pay to the respondent employee a sum of Rs.1,73,797/- on various counts, this writ petition has been filed.</p><p> Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that an ex parte proceeding has been held without prior notice to the respondent and by pointing out financial status of the respondent Corporation and the reorganization which resulted in certain administrative difficulties, Shri P.K.Mishra emphasizes that the default should be condoned and liberty be granted.</p><p> Shri A.K.Gupta has filed a detailed reply and submits that inspite of notice as the petitioner did not appear, the Labour Court has not committed any error in proceeding ex parte and, therefore, no interference can be made.</p><p> I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.</p><p> Matter pertains to settlement of post-retiral claims of the respondent workman who has been granted voluntary retirement.</p><p> As determination of the monetary benefit has been done ex parte, even though the material available shows that notice was served on the respondent Corporation inspite thereof, none appeared.</p><p> The fact remains that respondent Corporation had been facing certain wind up process and the possibility of the notice being misplaced in the office cannot be ruled out.</p><p> Under such circumstances, interest of justice would be met if proper enquiry into the claim of workman is ordered and, thereafter, the liabilities of the Corporation determined.</p><p> In view of the above, the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Labour Court is quashed and the matter is referred to the Labour Court with the following directions.</p><p> On the parties appearing before the Labour Court on 29 th October, 2012, and, thereafter, the Corporation filing its return and written statement to the claim of the respondent workman on the same day i.e.on 29th October, 2012, the Labour Court shall proceed to conduct an enquiry and after hearing all concerned, a decision be taken on or before 15th December, 2012.</p><p> With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.C.C.</p><p> as per rules.</p><p> (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Kailash Chandra Verma', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1043287' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 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
LAW: Section 33, the Industrial Disputes Act
CARDINAL: 3/10/12, 29
ORG: Labour Court, Corporation, Corporation, the Labour Court, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, the Labour Court, the Labour Court, the Labour Court, Corporation, Labour Court
GPE: Khandwa, C.C.
DATE: 1947, October, 2012, the same day i.e.on 29th October, 2012, December, 2012
PERSON: Shri, Rajendra Menon, Vy/-