Chennai Court February 2002 Judgments
S.V. Durairaj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR521]; (2002)2MLJ140
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent issued in No.03178/SP/17/DG-1 dated 17.6.1992 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pay the pension based on the military service of the petitioner.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he joined the Indian Army in the Madras Regiment on 13.01.1945 and he was discharged on 15.8.1961 on account of completion of the terms of engagement; that he was paid gratuity amounting to Rs.75/= per month in lieu of pension of Rs.10/= p.m.; that after his service in the army, he was re-employed as Record Keeper on 14.5.1955 in the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi; that he repaid the gratuity received for restoring the pension, which at the time of his discharge was Rs.10/- and on enhancement thereafter, the present rate is Rs.1,200/=, and therefore, in spite...
Tag this Judgment!Samikannu Naicker Vs. Sigamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ830
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount due by the defendant in respect the promissory note dated 1.2.1992.3. The defendant denied the borrowing from the plaintiff. It is stated, in the written statement, that the defendant has not seen the plaintiff and he is a stranger to the defendant. The defendant was not having any transaction with the plaintiff. The defendant has not received any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant has purchased vessels and certain articles from Sri. Selvasubramania Vilas Vessels Shop, Virudhachalam on 9.6.1990 to the extent of Rs. 13,980, out of which, the defendant has paid Rs. 7,000 to the owner of the said Shop, leaving the balance of Rs. 6,980. The defendant has also paid Rs. 2,500 and the remaining balance is Rs. 4,480 (wrongly typed as Rs. 41,480 in the written statement). The shop owner has compelled and demanded the defendant to put his signature on two stamped unwritten ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Singanallur Co-operative Housing Society, Trichy Roa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ158Mad
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. Though the matter was listed for considering the question of stay, keeping in view the fact that same question is involved for considering the writ petition on merit, on the consent of the counsels appearing, the entire matter is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner is a co-operative society. T.R.Sathyamoorthy, the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 4 was employed under the writ petitioner. His services were terminated on 19.11.1983 on the ground that on the date of the initial appointment, the candidate was over aged. Subsequently on 26.10.1987, the quondam employee filed petition before the Conciliation Officer and ultimately, matter was raised before the labour court. The labour court in its award dated 19.8.1992 quashed the order of termination and directed that the employee should be reinstated without backwages but with continuity of service. Thereafter, the employee joined the service on 1.6.1993...
Tag this Judgment!A. Pichai Nadar Vs. the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Tirunelveli an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR182]
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner joined as unskilled labour on 26.11.81 in the second respondent management, Khadi and Village Industries, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District on a monthly salary of Rs.750/- plus Rs.90/- as Dearness Allowance. When the petitioner reported duty on 3.2.87, he was denied employment without any reason. Hence, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute against his non-employment which was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.539 of 1991 which was later transferred to the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D.No.496 of 1992. The Labour Court framed the following issues for its consideration:-1.Whether the Khadi and Village Industries is an 'Industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act? and 2.Whether the non-employment of the petitioner from 3.2.87 was justified, and if not, what relief the petitioner was entitled to? 2. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the Labour Court on merits came to the conclusion that the non-employment of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Mariappan, Vs. the Commissioner, Kovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ113Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. In both the writ petitions, the first respondent is the Kovilpatti Municipality. 2. In W.P.No.19660 of 1994, wife of the first petitioner got superannuated on 30.6.1977 and subsequently she died on 9.8.1987. In W.P.No.19661 of 1994, the father of the petitioners died on 23.1.1983. Till that period, the gratuity amount payable to them was not paid. Therefore, the legal representatives of both the employees filed applications before the competent authorities for payment of gratuity. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour by Order dated 4.12.1992 directed the Commissioner, Kovilpatti Municipality to pay the gratuity. The Commissioner, Kovilpatti paid the gratuity amount, but, however, the interest for the delayed payment of gratuity was not paid. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and by order dated 13.12.1993, refused to grant the interest for the delayed payment. Hence, these writ petitions are filed asking the interest amount a...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Engine Valves Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, First Addition ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ57Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the management against the award of the Labour Court.2. The petitioner is the employer and between the workers and the management, the disputes were settled by mutual agreement during the period 1966 to 1978. During the period when Payment of Bonus Act came into force, this company gave maximum bonus of 20 per cent. Due to the directions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, dated April 19, 1979, with regard to power cut in the State, the management wanted to change the weekly holidays from Saturdays and Sundays toFridays and Saturdays. But the workmen went on strike stating that for the revised weekly days, they should be paid extra salary; it resulted in the lockout on May 2, 1979. Consequently 22 workmen who indulged in the illegal strike were given chargememo and enquiry was conducted and ultimately they were dismissed. On February 25, 1980, lockout was lifted. Thereafter, the elected representatives of the union were kept out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Chennai Port and Dock Workers Congress (intuc), (Food Corporation of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1072]; (2002)IIILLJ194Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. Today the matter is listed for being mentioned. In my order dated 21.02.2002 I had observed as follows:-'In reply however, Mr.V.Dhanapalan states that they have no objection to /work anywhere, if they are provided with proper work with same salary and allowance.'2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner however, states that his submission was subject to the outcome of W.P.No.18143 of 2001 which has been directed in the context of their entitlement to be absorbed in the service of the fourth respondent.3.The learned counsel states that the submission made by him was only subject to the result of the said main writ petition. I am inclined to record the said submission and it is made clear that the submission of the learned counsel as recorded in my order dated 21.02.2002 is subject to the outcome of W.P.No.18143 of 2001....
Tag this Judgment!The Management, Korakundah Estate, Koprakundah Post, the Nilgiris Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ99Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows:- The first respondent herein joined the services of the petitioner on 15.10.1969 and left the employment on 16.11.1990. Thereafter, she did not apply to the petitioner management for the payment of gratuity by filing necessary forms as required. But she filed an application for payment of gratuity before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein, in G.A. Case No. 135 of 1992 against the petitioner, claiming that the first respondent herein has put in 21 years of service from 18.2.1969 to 18.02.1991. But the second respondent has held that the first respondent herein has rendered 10 years of service to earn gratuity and granted a sum of Rs.3730..50Ps. towards gratuity. Against which, the first respondent herein filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act who in turn modified the order of the Controlling Authority and...
Tag this Judgment!Aravind Laboratories Vs. Arihant Cosmetics
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2005(30)PTC175(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 339 of 2001 has prayed for the following reliefs:-(i)Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from manufacturing and selling and offering for sale the collyrium with the offending mark 'EYE-TOP' or using the device mark in the carton as shown in document No. 3 in the plaint the registered trademark No. 124824 dated 11.09.1949 in any colour or any other trademark with the device of an eye or word eye or which is in any way deceptively or any other colourable imitation of the plaintiffs registered trademark Nos. 124824 dated 11.09.1949, 271583 dated 24.6.1971, 296914 dated 14.9.1974 or in any manner infringing the plaintiff registered trademark numbers referred above.(ii) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves, their servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from imitating the get up, colour scheme ...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ42
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Admit. Issue Rule Nisi. Interim stay. Call for the records in four weeks. Notice.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner Board which is a statutory body constituted under Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1971 complains that the Tribunal has assumed jurisdiction even in the absence of a notification under Section 15(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, extending its jurisdiction to statutory Corporations.3. The learned Counsel for petitioner brought to our notice an earlier order made by the Tribunal on 12.10.2000 in O.A.No.3716 of 1999 and connected matters, that order having been made by the Chairman sitting alone, constituting Bench under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985. it was submitted by me learned Counsel that it is on the basis of that order that the Tribunal has been asserting jurisdiction even in respect of persons who are not in the service of the State, but are employed in local or other authorities and Corporations or So...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »