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.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chotelal Mahto and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: III(2002)ACC280
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. The accident in question occurred on 16.10.1993 and the claimant petition was filed under the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 some time in the year 1994. Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of thq 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 fi...
Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity B ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ25Jhar
ORDER1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 6.12.1999 passed in CWJC. No. 179/1999(R), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of punishment passed against the respondent-writ petitioner. The respondent was in the service of the Bihar State Electricity Board and superannuated on 31.7.1998. It appears that one day before superannuation i.e. 31.7.86 the appellant took a decision and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The said decision was communicated after three days of his retirement. It further appears that it has not been disputed that after retirement of the petitioner no action was initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. On the basis of aforesaid decision the appellant proceed against the respondent and passed the impugned order of punishment by deducting a sum of Rs. 63,366/- from there trial dues. The learned single Judge relied upon the settle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›