Jharkhand Court September 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.
Lakhan Sao Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR459(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The question to be answered in this writ application is whether it was legal on the part of the respondents to make the petitioner retire from service with effect from 31.12.1996, treating him to have attained the age of 58 years, when in the service book of the petitioner, his date of birth was shown as 20.12.1955, on the basis of the medical certificate2. The petitioner was appointed as temporary unskilled Khalasi on 16.12.1977. The service, book Annexure-6, which was opened on 10.1.1981, records his date of birth as 20.12.1955 (it also shows that date of birth as per the certificate given by the Doctor, Patratu Thermal Power Station, where the petitioner was posted), besides it also shows another date within bracket and 10.12. (alleged interpolation) outside the bracket and this alleged interpolation has led to this controversy.3. The case of the petitioner is that subsequently in Form I of Provident Fund Form, Annexure-2, filed for nomination of the Provid...
Shanti Margret Harun and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR417(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for direction on the respondents to admit them in the Auxiliary Nursing and Midwife School, Dhanbad (ANM for short), they having found successful and selected against reserved Scheduled Tribe category.2. The case of the petitioners is that in pursuance is that in pursuance of advertisement published in newspaper 'Hindustan' dated 27th March, 2002, they applied for admission in ANM course. Initially, the respondents took decision to hold competitive test but later on such decision was modified and intimated vide notice published in newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' on 6th April, 2002, wherein it was mentioned that the select list will be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in matriculation examination instead of written test. Thereafter, a Selection Committee selected candidates on the basis of matriculation marks and published list of successful candidates including the list of Scheduled Tribe candidates,...
Dayal Malleables (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR154(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The most basic question in this writ petition is whether the provision of Section 16 the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) exempts the petitioner company from the application of the provisions of this Act. The second question is whether the assessments could have been made under the Act by the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi, for the period 1.7.1989 to 31.1.1991 and the third question is whether the employment of more than 20 persons on some period of a month could have brought the petitioner establishment under the mischief of the Act.2. The petitioner is private limited company and the petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Director. The petitioner company is an industrial unit manufacturing Malleable casting. It started its trial production in the industry on 11.6.1986 and the regular production started in the last week of November, 1986. In the month of June, 19...
Smeatons Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC699; [2003(1)JCR480(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is to deposit the earnest money/security deposit at the time of submitting tender documents as per the Government guidelines.3. The only question is whether the respondents can force its tenderers to deposit earnest money/security deposit only in the form of NSC or Fixed Deposit or not.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that Clause 12 of Tender Notice No. 2 of 2002-03 published by Executive Engineer, R.E.O. Works Division, Godda asking for earnest money/security deposit in the form of NSC/'or Fixed Deposit in violation of the Division Bench order dated 23rd January, 2002 of this Court in CWJC No. 1258 of 2001 (Bigla Kachhap @ Dilip Kachhap v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. and analogous case).In the said case, the Court passed the following orders :'The concept of the requirement relating to the amount of earnest money by a tenderer is to secure the interests of the Govt. The depo...
Ramchandra Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR420(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the purchaser-petitioners and the Counsel for the pre-emptor-5th respondent.2. It appears that the Pre-emption Application preferred by 5th Respondent under Section 16(3), LC Case No. 3/1995-96 was dismissed but it was set aside by Appellate Authority at the instance of 5th respondent in LC Appeal No. 10/96-97. The Revision Application, thereafter preferred by petitioners- purchaser in Case No. 46-2001/133-98 was dismissed for default by the Member Board of Revenue. The Restoration Petition preferred by petitioners was also dismissed.3. In the facts and circumstances as the petitioner-purchaser claimed right and title on the basis of the sale-deed and the Pre-emptor-5th respondent claimed preferential right being the adjacent raiyat, it is desirable that the Revision Application should be heard on merit.4. Accordingly, I set aside the orders dated 19th April, 2002 and 7th June, 2002 passed in Revision Case No. 46-2001/133-98 and remit ...
Madhav Rao Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR422(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the award dated 18.8.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1/92 whereby he has held that the termination of the services of the petitioner is proper and justified and the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement or any other relief.2. It appears that by virtue of notification dated 28.11.1991 the following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication :'Whether termination of service of Shri Madhav Rao, TEM No. 15830, HMBP--Workman of M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi is proper and justified? If not, whether heis entitled for reinstatement or to any other relief.'3. The case of the workman was that he was appointed as VTS Operator in 1963. In 1972 he was to go to Madras by availing the LTA claim. He applied for advance for that purpose. Though he received the amount from the Company but he could not travel to Madras. The management then filed ...
Basudeo Pradhan and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR416(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Heard the counsel for the purchaser-petitioners and the counsel for the pre-emptor-5th respondent.2. It appears that the Pre-emption Application preferred by 5th respondent under Section 16 (3), LC Case No. 1/1995-96 was dismissed but it was set aside by Appellate Authority at the instance of 5th respondent in LC Appeal No. 9/96-97. The Revision Application, thereafter preferred by petitioners-purchaser in Case No. 45-2001/132-98 was dismissed for default by the Member Board of Revenue, the Restoration Petition preferred by petitioners was also dismissed.3. In the facts and circumstances as the petitioner-purchaser claimed right and title on the basis of the sale-deed and the Pre-emptor-5th respondent claimed preferential right being the adjacent raiyat, it is desirable that the Revision Application should be heard on merit.4. Accordingly, I set aside the orders dated 19th April, 2002 and 7th June, 2002 passed in Revision Case No. 45-2001/132-98 and remit t...
Satish Kumar Singh and ors., Vs. Garden Reach Ship Builders and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR489(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. As in allthese writ applications, the same questionis sought to be determined, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the writ applications have been filed for quashing orders of the respondent No. 2, Annexure-10 series, and the order dated 8.12.1997 passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been discharged from service. 3. In short compass, the case of the petitioner is that admittedly they were the workmen in the Diesel Engine Plaint of respondent No. 1 at Ranchi and there were certain Tripartite Settlement which was not being implemented by the respondents and for that, there were some labour disputes going on between, the workmen and the management-respondents. According to the petitioners, on 13.12.1995, there was some commotion in which the workmen had participated, but according to the respondents, this was not a simple commotion, rather it was a case of confinement of Se...
Surendra Nath Choubey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR478(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioners have impugned the order dated 14.12.1994 whereby the Deputy Commissioner directed for reopening of the ceiling proceeding under Section 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961.2. It appears that petitioners earlier moved this Court against the notice issued under Section 45B of the said Act for reopening of the proceeding. The writ petition being CWJC No. 2009/1993(R) was disposed of on 15.7.1993 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter and pass reasoned order as to how it is a fit case for reopening. In compliance of that order the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa passed the impugned order.3. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has committed serious error of law in so far as he failed to record the reasons while passing the order under Section 45B of the said Act. Learned counsel relied upon the dec...
Workmen of Bhowra (N) Colliery of Ccl Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tri ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR493(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner who is the union representing the concerned workmen has challenged the award dated 20.10.1994 passed by the Central Government Tribunal in Reference Case No. 206/89 whereby the tribunal has answered the reference against the workmen and held they are not entitled to be regularized by the management.2. It appears that the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of power conferred under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the following dispute to the tribunal for adjudication :'Whether the action of the management of Bhowra (N) Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in not regularizing Shri Basant Paswan and ten others is justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?'3. The case of the workmen is that they were in the service of Bhowra Colliery since 1986. Instead of regularizing their services they were stopped from working by the management with effect from 14.9.1987. Their further case is that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »