Delhi Court May 2012 Judgments

Mrs. Kiran Uppal Prop. M/S Clas Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others

Court: Delhi

Suresh Kait, J. 1. Vide the instant application, filed on behalf of respondent/ workmen under Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the ID Act), direction against the petitioner/ management has been sought to pay the minimum wages as applicable from time to time. 2. Ms. Kittu Bajaj, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-workman has submitted that the Learned Industrial Tribunal -II, passed the impugned award dated 10.01.2005, enforceable with effect from 11.03.2005, while holding the termination of the services of the respondent/ workmen was illegal and unjustified, directed the petitioner to reinstate the workmen back in service with 50% back wages. 3. She further submitted, the instant application was filed on behalf of respondent/ workmen Nos.1,4 to 11, 14,17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 39, 43, 45, 47, and 54 to 58. However, during the pendency of instant petition, above mentioned respondents have compromised the matter w...

Ranjita Sahu Vs. Ssc and Another

Court: Delhi

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CM NO. 1799/2012 Application allowed on the grounds stated in the application. Consequently, the petition is restored to its original number. WP(C NO. 7023/2011 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the instant petition is taken for final disposal. 2. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to quash and set aside the Memorandum dated 13th July, 2011 passed by the respondent no.1 as under :- “With reference to candidate’s representation dated 9.6.2011, wherein, Mrs. Ranjita Sahu, Roll No. 0901250172 has not submitted the OBC certificate in Govt. of India proforma issued/counter signed by Competent Authority specified in the format before the closing date of the application i.e, 22.9.2009, and the OBC certificate submitted by her is not valid for this subject selection as per notice of the examination published in the Employment News. However, the date of birth of candidate is 3.7.1980 and ...

Vishwanath Jha Vs. Jay Prakash Panwar

Court: Delhi

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 5.3.2012. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent on 4.5.2012. Again today, no one appears. on behalf of the respondent. I have therefore heard the counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record am proceeding to dispose of the appeal. 2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 26.7.2004 by which the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith interest, which amount the respondent/plaintiff claimed was the amount of the loan given by him to the appellant/defendant. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff claimed that the appellant/defendant approached him for a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to repay another loan taken by him to purchase his house. Respondent/plaintiff claims to have given the...

Vijay Pal Vs. Management of M/S Panorma Export Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

P.K. Bhasin, J. 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner-workman, who was employed as a checker with the respondent Company, had challenged the award dated 09-05-2006 passed by the Labour Court in ID Case No. 102/2002 whereby the relief of re-instatement in service with back wages was denied to him by the Labour Court even after coming to the conclusion that his services had been illegally terminated by the respondent-management and and only a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded to him. The petitioner-workman felt that he was entitled to be re-instated in service with full back wages and so he knocked the doors of this Court for getting that relief. 2. The petitioner-workman, as per his case, was employed as a checker with the respondent-management since 02.01.2000 till 14.05.2001, when his services were illegally terminated. He had approached the labour authorities for his re-instatement in service but since he could not get that relief the dispute between hi...

Mohd. Wasim Vs. State

Court: Delhi

S.P. Garg, J. 1. By an order dated 09.12.2011 on the Appellant’s application under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 claiming juvenility on the day of occurrence (28.03.2006), this Court directed the Trial Court to hold an enquiry for determination of his age. The Trial Court examined CW-1 (Appellant’s father), CW-2 (Appellant himself), CW-3 (Ram Niwas), Inspector, Food and Supply Office, CW-4 (R.K.Anand), CW-5 (Dr.Shivani Mehra) and CW-6 (Dr.Sanjeev Lalwani). After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court concluded that the approximate age of the Appellant on the date of incident i.e. 28.03.2006 was between 19 to 24 years. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenged the findings of the Trial Court and vehemently argued that he was less than 18 years of age, on the date of incident. He further contended that the Trial Court fell into grave error in ignoring the ossificat...

inder Raj Kumar Vs. Delhi Jal Board

Court: Delhi

P.K.BHASIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the award dated 4th October, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-III, Delhi(in short ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting his claim for his being treated as a regular LDC from the date of his initial appointment on a muster roll LDC with the respondent-management. 2. The petitioner-workman admittedly was engaged by the respondent-management as a muster roll LDC in the year 1984. He continued to work as such till 1988 when the respondent-management decided to regularize the muster roll LDCs. The muster roll LDCs were then required to take a written test as well as to clear the typing test upon their clearing the written test. The petitioner-workman appeared in the written test held in the year 1988 and passed also but failed in the typing test which was also held in the same year. Next written test was held in December,1989 but the petitioner-workman did not take a chance in that test. In July,...

Dr. Pushkar Saxena Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

V.K. Jain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.9.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby OA No. 2703/2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition can be summarized as under: The petitioner was working as PGT (English) in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Gandhi Nagar. He was charge-sheeted on 2.12.1996 on the allegation of misbehaviour with the female students studying in the school. The Inquiry Officer, by his report dated 1.9.1998, reported that the indecent behaviour on the part of the petitioner had been proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 27.3.2000 imposed penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner which was also to be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was disposed of by an order dated 8.9.2000. The A...

Raghubir Singh Vs. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Gnct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(4)LLN682

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order of respondent dated 28.05.2009 whereby petitioner has been retired voluntary with effect from 31.05.2009 from the service of respondent. 2. It is further prayed that respondent be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from June, 2009. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner appointed as a Security Guard in the year 1983 and vide order dated 01.01.1987, he was confirmed by the respondent. 4. On 19.11.2008, petitioner applied for voluntary retirement due to his domestic problems, however, same was accepted vide impugned communication dated 28.05.2009 which was enforceable with effect from 31.05.2009. 5. On receiving this information from the office on the next date i.e. 29.05.2009, petitioner intimated, for withdrawal his request, to the respondent as under:- “To The Vice-Chairman DAMB, Pankha Road Janakpuri, New Delhi-58. Sub: Request fo...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepika and Others

Court: Delhi

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The file is taken up today as an application (CM. APPL No.9054/2012) has been moved by the Respondents No.1 to 3 for withdrawal of the amount. However, the learned counsel for the parties submit that it is a short matter and the Appeal can be disposed of today itself. The Appeal is thus taken for final disposal. 2. The Appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 20.10.2011 whereby a compensation of `29,31,900/- was awarded in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 3 for the death of Golty Saluja who died in an accident which occurred on 24.02.2011. 3. The main grounds taken up by the Appellant are that since the driver did not possess the licence for LMV (transport) and he possessed a licence to drive only a motorcycle, jeep, car etc., he was not entitled to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. It is urged that the Appellant Insurance Company was entitled to be exonerated and the recovery rights can only be granted by the Supreme Court...

Union of India and Another Vs. Sahib Singh

Court: Delhi

V.K. Jain, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, whereby the order dated 10.06.2011 transferring the respondent in this petition from Delhi to Lucknow as well as the order dated 22.09.2011 rejecting his representation against transfer were set aside and it was directed that the respondent would be allowed to re-join the post he was occupying before the transfer and would also be entitled to payment of regular salary, during the intervening period. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition can be summarized as under:- 2. The respondent working with Indian railways, on his promotion as Group „B‟Gazetted Officer, was posted as AFA in Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. He made representation seeking transfer to Delhi. Acceding to the request made by him, the respondent was transferred to Delhi by downgrading the senior scale post of senior AFA/FE/HQ, vide order dated 22.06....