Jharkhand Court July 2002 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.
Syed Ahmad Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR227(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Laxman Uraon, JJ. 1. The appellant was in the services of the respondent M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur (herein after referred to as TELCO for short).2. The appellant remained absent from duty since 14th March, 1987 and a prisoner's petition has preferred by him on 18th March, 1987 from District Jail, Jamshedpur. It appears that in pursuance of a criminal case registered under Section 377, IPC for committing unnatural offence, the appellant was taken in custody. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against him for absence from duty. In the departmental proceeding, the charges against the appellant having proved as per Standing Order, he was dismissed from the services of TELCO.3. At the instance of the appellant, a reference was made by appropriate Govt., registered as Reference Case No. 2/89. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur vide impugned award dated 20th January, 1996 held that the punishment was disproport...
Surendra Sao and ors. Vs. Sumitra Devi and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1601
S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Lakshman Uraon, JJ.1. The respondents-appellants being not satisfied with the judgment dated 18th September, 1997 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 306 of 1985 (R), have preferred this appeal.2. Learned Single Judge held that the application for pre-emption preferred by deceased father of appellant Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was not maintainable.3. The land in question measuring 6.52-1/2 decimals under Khata Nos. 57 and 151 of village Sakrauli belonged to father of writ petitioners namely Chamar Sahu. Said Chamar Sahu executed a registered sale-deed on 6th September, 1979 in favour of his two daughters - writ petitioners namely Sumitra Devi and Dukhni Devi for a consideration of Rs. 6,500/-.4. One Pratap Sahu (father of appellant Nos. 1 to 4 and husband of appellant No. 5) preferred the application for preemption under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 cla...
Employers in Relation to the Management of Damodar Colliery of Bccl Vs ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ708Jhar
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.5.1998 passed in CWJC No. 839 of 1991(R) whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application and affirmed the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Dhanbad.2. It appears that appellant, namely, Damodar Colliery of M/s. BCCL dismissed the concerned workmen, namely, Gopal Chamar and Uma Chamar after holding a domestic enquiry on the charges of misconduct by assaulting and abusing the superior while on duty within the colliery premises.After dismissal order passed by the Management, an Industrial Dispute was raised and finally the dispute was referred to the Tribunal in Reference Case No. 75 of 1984. The Tribunal after holding the domestic inquiry as improper allowed the parties to lead evidence before him. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the concerned workmen was not proved. Accordin...
Madhu Sudan Mittal Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR533(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The affidavit of the Chairman of the Board has been filed pursuant to our order dated 18.6.2002. After perusing this affidavit we pass the following order and issue hereinbelow the mention directions :(I) The Chairman shall file a fresh affidavit informing us the timeframe within which the work relating to underground cabling on major Roads of Ranchi Town shall be completed. In Para 5 (iii) of his affidavit he has skirted this issue; (II) The Chairman shall personally take up, telephonically as well by a written communication (Fax and Courier both) with the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata the problem relating to the railways clearance as mentioned in Para 5(xii) of his affidavit. He shall inform and request the General Manager, S.E. Railway, the desire of this Court that the clearance from the Railway be accorded on top priority basis and within a period of one week, unless the Railways are of the opinion that the clearance on any practical corisideraiion cannot...
Madan Mohan Vadehra Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR230(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Thepetitioner has challenged the Eviction Case No. 91 of 1997 initiated against him under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on the ground that the summary proceeding is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The dispute relates to land measuring 0.2.7 decimals out of 3 acres 68 decimals of Khata No. 23, Khewat No. 2 in Mouza-Pandedih.3. The case of petitioner is that the land in question is his raiyati land. Before the Cadestral Survey Settlement (C.S. Settlement), the recorded Khewat-holder, Chandrakant Ganguli executed a registered deed of Mokarari Lease Agreement on 14th August, 1906 in respect to some lands of Khewat No. 2 in favour of M/s. Bengal Coal Company Limited. In C.S. record of rights was published in the year 1925. M/s. Bengal Coal Company Limited was shown as tenant in respect of Khata No. 23 under the landlord-Chandrakant Ganguli and others of Khewat No. 2. The aforesaid M/s. Bengal Coal Compan...
Ulfat Ali Vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR732(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Lakshman Uraon, JJ. 1. The appellant Ulfat Ali is present in the Court alongwith his counsel Mr. Dinesh Kumar. He accepted that he was getting unrevised scale of pay of Rs. 785- 1,210/- after the recommendation of 4th Pay Revision Committee. Subsequently after the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee he was provided with corresponding replaced pay of scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600/-.2. While it was brought to the notice of the Court that an employee is entitled for the revised scale of pay as per the resolution of the Government and Rs. 1400-2600/- was the replaced scale of pay provided to those who are in the old pay of scale of Rs. 785-1210/-, Mr. Ulfat Ali, the appellant states that as he was already retired, intends to withdraw the appeal.3. Similar prayer was made by his counsel, Mr. Dinesh Kumar to which no objection raised by the counsel for the Municipal Corporation,This appeal is, accordingly, dismissedas withdrawn....
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Chotelal Mahato and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR96]; (2003)ILLJ102Jhar
ORDER1. The accident in question occurred on 16.10.1993 and the complaint petition was filed under the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 sometime in the year 1994. Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as it presently stands was inserted through an amendment in 1995 being effective from 15th September, 1995, Clause (b) of the Sub-section (3), supra, reads thus :-- '4-A(3)(b). If, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty : Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed,' 2. First of all there should be a clear finding by the Tribunal with respect to the absence of any reason for the delay and only based on such finding...
Thakur Ghansham Singh Munda Vs. Commission S.C. Division and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1551
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 19.1.1998 passed in CVVJC No. 2143/1990 (R) whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ application and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Revision No. 117/86.2. The facts of the case He in a narrow compass.3. The writ petitioner who is appellant here filed an application under Section 242 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (in short, 'CNT Act') claiming restoration of land of plot No. 262, 253 and 289 of khata No. 1 of village Chayadih measuring an area of 5.40 acres. The restoration application was filed against Nuru Mahtp and Gora Mahto who were respondent Nos. 4 and 5 alleging, inter alia, that he had Mundari Khutkatti rights over the land in question and in pursuant to the judgment passed in F.A. No. 257/1945 possession of the same had been delivered in his favour but subsequently the said respondents created false ...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Atar Khatoon and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ644
ORDER1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The only point involved in this appeal, as filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. Actually what we see from the perusal of the judgment under challenge in this appeal is that the accident in question occurred on 21.3.1996 and as per the witness of the appellant before the Tribunal the driver did possess a valid driving licence which however, was not renewed between 2nd March, 1996 to 24th March, 1996 and was renewed on 25th March, 1996. The accident in question having occurred on 21st March, 1996, according to the appellant, it should be considered that as on the date of the accident the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. For the reasons that we take hereinafter, we in this appeal need not go into the merits of the aibresaid contention or the validity of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. In...
Hindustan Copper Limited and ors. Vs. Byomkesh Mishra
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1974; [2003(4)JCR733(Jhr)]; (2003)ILLJ682Jhar
S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Lakshman Uraon, JJ. 1. The Respondent-Byomkesh Mishra while functioning as Supervisor- III in Mechanical Department of appellant-Hindustan Copper Limited, he was proceeded departmentally on the charge that he had fraudulently drawn 15 pieces of 30314 bearing each costing a sum of Rs. 2140 approximately from the Mines Stores of the appellant company, Mosabani and misappropriated 11 out of 15 bearings drawn by him. On conclusion of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer he submitted a report on May 14, 1993. The appellant company, thereafter, dismissed Respondent-B Mishra from their services vide letter No. DGM(M)/F/4612/93 dated June 7, 1993. The Respondent B. Mishra thereafter, moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2330/99(R) against the order of dismissal when he was asked to prefer appeal. The Respondent-B Mishra in view of the Court's order preferred appeal which was considered by the Executive Director who set aside the dismissal order on the ground that b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »