Jharkhand Ranchi Court September 2010 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.
Rajeshwar Nath Tripathy. Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders as contained the Annexures- 3 and 4.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier, in pursuance of the notice issued by the Lower Court in B.S. Case No. 3 of 2002, the petitioner-company appeared and filed a petition that the application is not maintainable under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Rules and the said application was rejected by the Court below. Thereafter, he preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 351 of 2003 and after hearing the parties this Court, by its order dated 07.01.2009, gave a direction that the matter of jurisdiction will be decided by the trial Court along with all other issues and directed the Labour Court, Ranchi to dispose of the entire case within four months. It is submitted by the learned c...
The Tinplate Company of India Limited, Vs. the State of Jharkhand, and ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Ref. Case no. 3 of 1990 has wrongly came to a finding that charges were not proved and order of dismissal of workmen is bad in law and directed for reinstatement of the workman. He has further argued that no pleading on behalf of the workman has been placed to show that he was not gainfully employed during the period of his dismissal to the date of the award and as such the direction of full back wages was wrongly passed. He has relied upon the judgment of this court reported in 2010(2) JCR page 516 in the case of management of SAIL relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such the order passed for full payment is bad in law and fit to be quashed.2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- workman has submitted that it will appear that although charges were made against the workman that he allowed the lifting of TISCO material , but the Labour Court after...
Jaggu Kharwar. and ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Lohar. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. It is submitted that petitioner no. 1-Jagu Kharwar died during pendency of this writ petition on 18.12.2009, leaving behind his heirs, as mentioned in para 5, who may be substituted and on whose behalf, Vakalatnama has also been filed. Heard.2. The persons mentioned in para 5 are allowed to be substituted in place of deceased-petitioner no. 1. I.A. no. 553 of 2010 is disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 2524 of 2007 This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.2.2007, passed by learned A.D.J.-IV, F.T.C., Garhwa, in Title Appeal No. 32 of 2003, refusing the prayer of the petitioners for bringing on record two documents.3. It is submitted that those documents were brought on record in the trial court by the petitioners but by inadvertence they could not be marked as exhibits and one document is a public document and other can be marked only by calling the records of relevant case.4. Mr. Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondents, supported the impugned order and sub...
Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited, Vs. Adityapur Industrial ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for AIADA submitted that if AIADA has not appeared before D.R.T. II, Mumbai in the case instituted by the Dena Bank against predecessor in interest of the petitioner, AIADA will appear and cooperate in early disposal of the proceeding.AIADA is directed to do so.2. He further submitted that in view of the disputed facts involved, the proper remedy of the petitioner is to file appeal against the order dated 10.5.2006 (annexure 3) cancelling the allotment made in the favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner under Section 6 (2) (a) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 before the Secretary of the department of Industries. On this Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though petitioner is not required to file appeal in view of the fact that he purchased the land in sale by respondent no. 5, however, he will advise his client to file appeal, but the delay m...
The Management of M/S TIn Plate Co. of Indian Ltd.. Vs. the State of J ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 25.02.2005 passed by the presiding officer Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal, while replying the reference "whether the termination of service of Sri B.D. Singh, P.No.08623, workman of M/s Tin Plate Company of India Ltd., Jamshedpur is proper and justified", came to a finding at para 11 that "I find that report of the Enquiry Officer is based on evidence" and, accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the management. While deciding issue No.2 as to whether the termination order issued by the General Manager, Tin Plate Company was proper or not, it is held that as per Ext. M/12, the Managing Director Mr. R.K. Bhasin was only authorized as the disciplinary authority of the factory. It was argued that since Managing Director has got no power to delegate the same, the order of dismissal passed by the General Manager was not proper. Since the charge has been proved, it is held that the workman will n...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›