Jharkhand Court January 2004 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.
The Management of D.V.C. Vs. Dwarika Mistry and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR652(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In the present writ application the petitioner i.e. the Management of Damodar Valley Corporation, has challenged the award of the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dhanbad dated 6.4.1996 in Reference Case No. 15 of 1994 whereby the learned Labour Court held that the age declared by the concerned workman at the time of entry into the service of corporation had not been properly recorded and he has been retired from service with effect from 28.2.1991 i.e. 8 years before attaining the age of superannuation. It was further held that premature retirement amounted to 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2(00) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and since there has been no compliance of the mandatory requirement of law contained in Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Therefore, the order of retirement is bad in the eye of law and accordingly, the management was directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other consequential benefi...
Md. Zaki Ahmad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR431(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.C. to AAG. and with their consent, this Writ Application is being disposed off at the stage of admission.2. In this Writ Application, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari in relation to an officer Order dated 31.08.2002 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder he has been put under suspension.3. On 08.12.1981, the Petitioner was appointed as Peon in the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Chalbasa. Four years thereafter, i.e., on or about 17.04.1985, he was promoted to a Class-III post and posted as a clerk in the Majhari Block in the office of the Block Development Officer in the district of Singhbhum (West). Thereafter, in January, 2000, on being transferred, he joined as a Clerk in the office of the Block Development Officer at Ghatsila in the district of Singhbhum (East).4. The Petitioner states that on 28.06.2002, he filed an informatory application in...
Kisto Pada Pramanik and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR445(Jhr)]
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The background of the matter is that a large chunk of land situated at Dindli in the district of Singhbhum was acquired by the State Government in the year 1964 for public purpose viz. for construction of houses under different houses scheme but since no award was prepared with the period as provided under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, a writ application was filed before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court being CWJC No. 1882 of 1986(R) by some of the awar-dees for declaration that the entire land acquisition proceeding to be ultra virus and without Jurisdiction in view of the expressed provision of under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment Act 1984). A Division Bench of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court by its Judgment dated 21.5.1997 allowed the writ application holding that in view of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire acquisiti...
Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR435(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner, Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited has challenged the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi dated 7.8.1996, in Ref. Case No. 7 of 1990, wherein it was held that the dismissal or removal of the concerned workman under Clause 15 (X) of the Standing Order is not valid and legal and that Ext.-E by which name of the concerned workman was struck off from the rolls of the corporation is not legal and justified and thereby the concerned workman is entitled to his salary and all the consequential benefits deeming him to be in service.... .2. Form the impugned award it appears that the Government of Bihar referred the following disputes for adjudication :'Whether dismissal of Somra Oraon is justified? if not what relief is entitled to and since when?3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 had joined the service of the management of the Corporation on 22.7.1970, as a Mazdoor, and he later upgraded as a Points Man Grad 'G'...
Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Central G ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR463(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In the present writ application the prayer for the petitioner is for quashing the award dated 5.3.1997 as contained in Annexure-7, whereby the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad has set aside the order of dismissal and has ordered to reinstate the Respondent No. 2 in service with 50% of the back wages with all other benefits including continuity of service, seniority etc., in Ref. Case No. 88 of 1993 under Section 10(1)(d)(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.2. The respondent No. 2 Bishwanth Sarkar was working as a Drill man 'C' with the petitioner. It is stated that there was 50 group known a Crew, consisting of one drill man and two helpers in each group and respondent No. 2 i.e. workman concerned was served with a charge-sheet on 30.4.1992 alleging that he had resorted to go slow tactics with effect from 18.4.1992 resulting in reduction in production. In-spite of the order/direction of the Management he did not give normal production an...
Kashi Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR456(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner had challenged the order as contained in letter No. 1208 (Eastt) dated 30.12.1996, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau addressed to District Welfare Officer, Palamau, whereby the District Welfare Officer was directed to relieve the petitioner to join the Residential High School, Garu as he was an employee of the said school. It was further directed that the show cause notice also be issued asking explanation from the petitioner regarding serious financial irregularities and also to make necessary correction in his service book in consultation with the District Accounts Officer to ascertain the amount which was paid in excess to the petitioner and action be taken against this petitioner for realization of the amount paid in excess to him. The aforesaid letter had been annexed as Annexure-5 to the present writ application.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a clerk in the Welfare cadre in the Department of Welfare at Gar...
Ram Ballabh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR643(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner, a Steno was initially appointed in Bihar State Construction Corporation, his services were placed under the Waterways Department and thereafter by the order of the Chief Engineer, water Resources Department, Ranchi, the services of the petitioner was absorbed against the vacant post of Steno.2. Subsequently, by an Office Order dated 14.12.1995, issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, the services of the petitioner was returned from Water Resources Department to Bihar State Construction Corporation, Patna.3. The Petitioner challenged the said order by filing CWJC No. 2054 of 1998 before the Patna High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 30.11.1998 and consequently, the petitioner was directed to continue in the Water Resources Department wherein his service was absorbed. Thereafter, the joining of the petitioner in the Water Resources Department was accepted on 26.02,1999 as it appears from Annex...
Kedar Nath Jha Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR661(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J,1. The Government of Bihar vide notification dated 18.2.1986 referred the Industrial Dispute between the Management of TELCO Limited, Jamshed-pur (Hereinafter referred as the 'Company') and workman namely Kedar Nath Jha (Hereinafter referred as the 'workman') for adjudicating the following disputes:---'Whether the termination of services of Sri Kedar Nath Jha, by which the Management is proper and justified? if not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief?'2. The reference was answered by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Jam-shedpur, by award dated 18.11.1995 which is under challenge in this writ application.3. By the impugned award the learned Labour Court held that from the evidence available on record the Management failed to show that Manager (Finance) had power to issue charge sheet and to constitute the domestic enquiry and therefore, the charge sheet issued and domestic enquiry committee constituted by the Manager (Finance) was w...
Jawahar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand/Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR417(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner, Circle Inspector-cum-Kanungo, has prayed for direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer and has further prayed to quash the notification dated 9.10.2000, as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition whereby the Circle Inspectors-cum-Kanungos were promoted to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer (Revenue).2. The ground for challenge of Annexure-2 i.e., notification dated 9.10.2000, is that some of the persons, who have been promoted, were juniors to the petitioner but the case of the petitioner for promotion has not been illegally considered on the ground that vigilance case is pending against him since last 17 years.3. From the averments made in the writ petition it appears that only a vague statement has been made by the petitioner that some persons junior to him have been promoted vide, notification dated 9.10.2000, as contained in Annexure-2. The petitioner has not even made those junior...
Jharkhand State Housing Board and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)BLJR710; [2004(1)JCR429(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioners-Board have challenged the order dated 23.1.1996, passed by the Charge Officer, Singhbhum Settlement, Jamshedpur, whereby in purported exercise of power under Section 90 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (Hereinafter referred to be as the 'Act' for the sake of convenience) allowed the application filed on 17.8.1988, by the respondent No. 4 and directed to revise the Khata and to prepare the same in the name of Respondent No. 4 in place of the Petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that Plot Nos. 1735 and 1736 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1831 under R.S. Khata No. 228 stood recorded in the name of Partu Mahato of village Dindli. The said lands of R.S. Plot No. 1831 under R.S. Khata No. 228 were acquired and settled with the Housing Board on 22.5.1965. Since the said Khata was wrongly prepared in the name of the respondent No. 4 an objection under Section 83 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed by the petitioner in the year 1978 whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »