Himachal Pradesh Court September 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Superintending Engineer Vs. Bhartu Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR68],(2004)IILLJ152HP
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 herein were employed as daily rated Baildars on different dates. Their services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Reference was made to the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court in the following terms:'Whether the termination of services of Shri Bhartu Ram and 17 other workers (List enclosed) by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Division, Paonta, District Sirmaur (HP) on completion of 240 days' continuous service without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry and without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified, if not, to what relief of service benefits including back wages, seniority and amount of compensation, these aggrieved workmen are entitled?'2. The defence raised by the petitioners before the labour Court was that the respondents did not complete 240 days preceding to the year when they left the j...
State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. Vs. Naresh Kumar and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ679HP
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.1. De-linked from the bunch matter.2. Respondent Naresh Kumar was employed as daily rated Baildar by the petitioners on September 1, 1991. His services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Reference was made to the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court in the following terms:'Whether the termination of services of Shri Naresh Kumar, son of Shri Rattan Singh, Village Lunapani, P.O. Bhangrotu, Tehsil & District Mandi, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Division, Baggi, District, Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. June 1, 1994 on completion of 240 days continuous service, without any notice, enquiry, charge-sheet and without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified. If not, to what relief of past service benefits including back wages, seniority and amount of compensation, continuity in service and amount of compensation, Shri Naresh Kumar is ...
State of H.P. and ors. Vs. Presiding Judge and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ702HP
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.1. Delinked from the bunch matter.2. Respondents Dhani Ram and Inder Singh were employed as Baildar and Mason Grade-11 by the petitioners in the years 1985 and 1987 respectively. Their services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short 'the Act'). Respondents raised a dispute in the year 1996 on which a Reference under Section 10 of the Act was made to the Labour Court.3. The Labour Court by its award dated September 3, 1998 answered the Reference holding that the termination of the respondents was illegal. The termination was set aside and the respondents-workmen were held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and seniority from the date of Reference to the Court. The Court took a view that respondents were not entitled to any back wages.4. Dissatisfied, the employer-petitioners are in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.5. The defence rais...
Kataria Builders Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR137(HP)
Kuldeep Chand Sood, J.1. The Question Raised in this PetitionWhether a claimant decree holder is entitled to interest of 18% per annum under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the Arbitrator allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum upto the date of Award and kept silent so far interest from the date of Award till the date of payment is concerned ?2. Facts, Necessary, may be NoticedAn Award was made in favour of the petitioner-decree holder by the Arbitrator (Superintending Engineer, Arbitration, HP, PWD, Solan) in case No. SE-ARB-244/96 on 26th October, 1999 in the following terms :'Award in favour of plaintiff-M/s. Kataria Builders, 224 Saingarh Pathankot (Punjab)--ClaimantSr No.Particulars of ClaimAmountDemandedAmountAwardedRemarks12345Claims1.Due to prolong-ation contractRs. 8,84,000Rs. 56,3752.On account of Final billRs. 1,42,222Rs. 1,06,8853.On account of items not paidRs. 80,000 (Modified to Rs.54,731)NIL4.Works executed beyond deviationlimit...
Apple Valley Resort Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas328(HP)
R.L. Khurana, J.1. Whether in the absence of a specific authorisation a director can bring an action for and on behalf of a company ?--is the primary question arising for determination in the present case.2. The present writ petition has been directed by the petitioner-company through one Shri Arun Sharma, claiming to be its director, seeking the issuance of the following writ, order or directions to the respondents :(i) the respondents be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 75,383 along with interest at the rate of 19.25 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests for value received ;(ii) To quash the illegal demand raised by the respondents in its bill bearing No. 223085 dated November 30, 1995, whereby a sum of Rs. 5,27,024 in respect of SOP and Rs. 9,589 in respect of E/D have been demanded from the petitioner-company with further directions to the respondents not to claim or raise any bill against the petitioner-company on account of the alleged slow reading of metering equipment as per ...
State of H.P. Vs. Roop Chand Malhotra and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ1008HP
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the State of H. P. represented by the Superintending Engineer, 1st Circle, HPPWD, Mandi, H.P. for issuance of appropriate writ, directions or orders quashing and setting the award dated December 4, 1996 of the Presiding Judge, Labour Court passed in Reference No. 33/93 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Roop Chand Malhotra, respondent No. 1-workman was engaged as a Steno-typist on daily-wage w.e.f December 5, 1978 to February 20, 1979 in view of his educational qualification, as he could not perform his duty satisfactorily, he was directed to work in the field in various capacities from February 21, 1979 to February 11, 1988. Jogeshwar Singh Rana, respondent No. 2 workman was engaged as a Baildar on daily-wage basis. Both these workmen did not report on duty w.e.f. February 11, 1988 and February 13, 1988 respectively as a result thereof their name...
Randhir Verma Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC255,2004ACJ411
V.K. Gupta, CJ.1. This is a very very unfortunate case where statutory authority, namely, the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, at Shimla, while deciding and disposing of a petition filed before him for compensation under Section 22 of the Act did not decide a vital and an important issue relating to the liability of the insurance company with which the vehicle in question was admittedly insured at the time of accident. His omission to decide the question of the liability of the insurance company to pay the award amount has led the petitioner, owner of the vehicle, to this avoidable litigation. This in the face of a clear averment in the claim application filed by claimants that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, (respondent No. 1 herein) and also in the face of clear, categorical and specific averment in reply filed by the petitioner hereinbefore the Commissioner that the vehicle was not only insured with respondent No. 1 but also it was furnishing i...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›