Chennai Court November 1966 Judgments
Nellai Cotton Mills Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ240Mad
Venkatadri, J.1. The management of the Nellai Cotton Mills, Tirunelveli, has filed this petition under Article 228 of the Constitution, to quash the decision of the arbitrator (the Assistant Commissioner of Labour II, Madras) in a dispute arising between the management and respondents 2 to 6 herein, some of the workman who were dismissed from service alter ft domestic en q air y conducted by the management.2. The decision of the arbitrator, appointed by consent of parties, is to this effect. The findings of the domestic enquiry officer in regard to respondents 4 to 6 were baseless and their dismissal was, therefore, set aside and they were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back-wages. As regards respondent 3, the management had some justification for taking action against him, but his unemployment for about eight months was an adequate punishment and he was, therefore, directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back-wages. As regards respond...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ417
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. This is a petition under Section 561A Cri.P.C. to quash the proceedings instituted against the petitioner in C.C. 2179 of 1966 on the file of the Sub Magistrate, Tirukoilur. The petitioner Venkataraman was the Karnam of Alur group of villages in Tirukoilur taluk. For dereliction of duty, the Revenue Divisional Officer placed him under interim suspension, pending framing of charges against him, and directed the Karnam of Sholavandapuram to be in additional charge of Alur group vice the petitioner. The petitioner, however, refused to hand over the records to the Karnam of Sholavandapuram. That Karnam reported the matter to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar filed a complaint before the learned Sub Magistrate under Section 175 I.P.C., That is C.C. No. 2179 of 1966. The objection which the petitioner took before the learned Magistrate was that in view of the provisions of Section 195(1)(a) Criminal P.C., the complaint filed by the Tahsildar was incompetent and that only t...
Tag this Judgment!Jhun Jhunwala Brothers Vs. N.K.M. Subbaramier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad194
(1) This is a petition under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts by Act by the defendant in O. S. No. 583 of 1962 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madurai, to revise the judgment and decree, decreeing the plaintiff's suit.(2) The plaintiff sued for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1077-45 being the excise duty collected by the defendant from him which he alleged he was not entitled to do. The defendant has got his factory near Cuttack and he supplied some soda bottles to the plaintiff at Madurai. In his bill he had claimed excise duty which was newly levied on the goods which according to him were produced after 1-3-1961. The defendant took objection to the jurisdiction of the Madurai Court to try the suit. He also raised other objections with which we need not concern ourselves in the view that I take on the question of jurisdiction.(3) Ex. B-4 is the relevant document which reads as follows:"Dear Sir,Please supply the under-noted goods as per your terms of contract, prin...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore-salem Transport (Private) Ltd. Vs. their Workmen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ120Mad
Ramakrishan, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the award of respondent 2, Commissioner of Labour, on a reference made under S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, in a dispute that arose between the petitioner herein, the management of a bus transport company at Erode, and respondent 1, certain workmen of the abovesaid company represented by their union. The dispute in the present case is In regard to four employees by name, Kullappan, Narasimhan, Sreerangan and Usman. In the case of Kullappan, the points referred to the arbitrator for adjudication were:(1) Is the non-employment of M. Kullappan justified ?(2) To what relief he is entitled ?The finding of the arbitrator was that Kullappan while travelling on duty on 26 October 1960 as bus conductor suffered a severe accident Involving fracture in the leg: and it led to his hospitalization. For about one year thereafter, the management was paying wages to Kullappan but thereafter the paym...
Tag this Judgment!Cosmopolitan Club Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ797Mad
Srinivasan, J.The petitioner is the Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, The respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, issued a notice, dated 29 July 1963, to the petitioner informing the petitioner that with effect from 1 July 1963, the Employees' Provident Funds Act had been made applicable to the petitioner-club and called upon the petitioner to submit the necessary return in order to give effect to the provident fund scheme. The petitioner has come to Court claiming that the club, which is a body corporate registered under the Indian Companies Act, is a social recreational association formed for the purpose of affording to its members the privileges, advantages and conveniences of a club. It is claimed that the notification Issued by the Government under Section 1, Sub-section (3)(b), of the Act, which purported to bring within the scope of the Employees' Provident Funds Act institutions like the petitioner-club, is beyond the ambit of that provision and is ultra vires an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shanmugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1725
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the 39 accused, against whom a charge-sheet was filed for offences of rioting and attempt to murder under Section 307, Penal Code before the learned II Class Magistrates, Gudiyattam, in P. R. C. No. 4 of 1965. The offence under Section 307, Penal Code being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Sub-Magistrate had to hold an enquiry under the provisions of chap, XVIII of the Code, and since the proceeding was instituted on a police report, the procedure applicable was that under Section 207-A, Criminal P. C. .3 The case against the accused was that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly to attack the police station and murder the Sub-Inspector and others in connection with the anti-Hindi agitation. The learned Sub-Magistrate examined some witnesses and being of the opinion that no offence under Section 307, Penal Code was made out, but only offences triable by a I Class Magistrate, submitted the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturbanagar Co-operative House Construction Society, Madras Vs. K. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad67; (1967)IILLJ126Mad
ORDER(1) This petition is filed by the Kasturbanagar Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd. for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Labour Court, Madras, in C. P. No. 216 of 1964.(2) The first respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for computation of the benefits of the notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity and leave salary. The first respondent was employed as a peon in the Madras Co-operative House Construction Society from 3-12-1948. This Society was divided into eight societies from 10-8-1962, by virtue of the provisions of S. 13 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, Act VI of 1932. The assets and liabilities of the parent Society were divided among the eight societies. The services of the first respondent were placed at the disposal of the Kasturbanagar Co-operative Society which was one of the eight societies. The first respondent was drawing a salary of Rs. 85 till 8-3...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Employees' Association (by General Secretary) Vs. Arbitrator [ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ349Mad
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this writ petition can be summarized briefly.2. The petitioner is the Textile Employees' Association, Tiruehi Road, Singanallur. On account of a dispute which arose between a specified number of 88 workers employed in the Cambodia Mills in the categories of jobbers, maistrie, fitters and boilers on the one hand and the management on the other, about the quantum of production bonus, the dispute was referred under Section 10a. of the Industrial Desputes Act, voluntarily to an arbitrator Sri K. Ramaswami Gounder. retired High Court Judge and industrial tribunal, for adjudication. For regulating the payment of this production bonus, it is common ground that there was an agreement between the management of the textile industry in Coimbatore and workers in 1949, which provided for the calculation of production bonus by multiplying the uniform rate of bonus payable to the actual spinners or piecera as they were called (Ra. 2-7-0) b...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector Vs. Raman Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1966
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ196
K. Veeraswami, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Regulation (XI of 1089-M.E.). That was a reference at the instance of the first respondent. The land acquired is comprised in S. No. 1111 in Ponmanai village, Kalkulam Taluk, and the purpose of the acquisition was to provide land for the Kulasekharam High School. The crucial date for purposes of determining the market value under the provisions of the said Regulation is the date of the declaration under Section 6, which is 6th April, 1954. The property belonged to the fifth respondent who mortgaged the same usufructuarily in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and 6. The mortgagees apparently for purposes of convenient enjoyment by a deed of partition dated 1st June, 1951, divided the hypotheca inter se and as a result, the second respondent was allotted a fourth share the third and the first one-half and a fourth share respectively. Before the Land Acquisition Officer the claim was at the rate...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Viswanathan Vs. Union of India, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad87
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.(1) The Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by one S.S. Viswanathan, who filed O.S. No. 544 of 1957 in the City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,582-12-0, being the arrears of salary and provident fund contribution, and for costs, against the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras. The suit was originally dismissed and it went up in appeal to the learned First Additional Judge of the City Civil Court, who thought that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree and he decreed the suit. The matter came up before Kunhamed Kutti J. in S.A. No. 418 of 1961, and the learned judge allowed the second appeal by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, and held that the claim for special provident fund contribution ought not to have been decreed. To the extent to which the second appeal was allowed, the learned Judge granted leave.(2) Hence, the only point involved in this Letters Patent Appeal by the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »