Jharkhand Court July 2006 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.
Sureshwar Nath Tripathi Vs. Mineral Area Development Authority and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR152(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Validity of the impugned order dated 16th December, 2003, reverting the petitioner to the post of Meter Reader, has been called, in question, in the present case. Only ground for reversion indicated in the impugned order is the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in an earlier writ application. It is appropriate to refer to the factual background leading to the filing of present petition.2. Petitioner, a workman with Respondent No. 1-Authority, was terminated from its service on 25th February, 1977. The workman raised an industrial dispute regarding his termination and a reference came to be made to the Labour Court in terms of Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. Labour Court after holding an enquiry answered the reference vide its award dated 13th March, 1987. Labour Court found the termination unjustified and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner (workman) to the post of Meter Reader wherefrom he was terminated and. granted full back wages and...
Lafarge India Employees Union Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR589(Jhr)]; (2007)2LLJ505Jhar
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 4th October, 2001, passed by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar of Trade Unions, whereby and whereunder, the said authority has observed that the practice of deduction of Membership fee from the wages, popularly known as Check off System, is undemocratic.2. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that the Labour Commissioner either in his capacity or in the capacity of Registrar of Trade Unions has no such jurisdiction to make any observation as to whether the deduction of Membership fee from the wages, popularly known as Check Off System, is democratic or not. Learned Counsel has also relied on Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in sup port of deduction, which reads as follows:7. Deductions which may be made from wages.-(1)xxx xxx xxx xxx(2) Deductions from the wages of an employed person shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of (his Act, and may be ...
Judhistir Mahato and Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR367
D.P. Singh, J.1. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years, and appellant No. 2 Parikhit Mahato stands further convicted for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years, by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge. Dhanbad in Sessions Trail No. 153 of 1986.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 5th of November 1982, the informant and her family members had gone to harvest the paddy crop standing in Mauza- Gundligorha, P.S.- Chandankiary, District- Dhanbad. According to the informant, the appellant along with seven others came there armed variously and objected on harvesting the paddy. Further it is slated that when her husband Bidhyadhar Mahato asserted that he has right to harvest the paddy, all the accused persons fell upon him with arms in their hands. They further assaulted Mahanand Mahto. I...
Nemai Pandit and ors. Vs. Akrur Pandit and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR155(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1991 upholding the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 19 of 1973 by the Sub Judge I, Jamtara.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for adjudication and declaration that Akrur Pandit is a legally adopted son of Dukhu Pandit and is next nearest heir and the successor of the estate left by Dukhu Pandit and that the defendants are liable to be ejected from the land possessed by them. Plaintiff also prayed for a preliminary decree for partition of moiety share of the plaintiff in Schedule 'B' property and 1/3 share in Schedule 'C' property and appropriate decree for Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'D' properties.3. The defendants contested the suit by filing three separate sets of written statements. One by the defendant No. 1, another by the defendants No. 2 and 3 and the third set was filed on behalf of the respond...
Judhistir Mahato and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR622(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years, and appellant No. 2 Parikhit Mahato stands further convicted for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years, by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1986.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 5th of November. 1982. the informant and her family members had gone to harvest the paddy crop standing in Mauza-Gundligorha, P.S. Chandankiary, District Dhanbad. According to the informant, the appellant along with seven others came there armed variously and objected on harvesting the paddy. Further it is stated that when her husband Bidyadhar Mahato asserted that he has right to harvest the paddy, all the accused persons fell upon him with arms in their hands. They further assaulted Mahanand Mahto. It i...
Ratan Kumar Adhikary and ors. Vs. State of Bihar Through Secretary, Re ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR417(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to give them seniority and, accordingly, amend the gradation list and also to pay their salary with all increments and other ancillary payments with effect from 8.7.1980 in view of the resolution of the State Government contained in Memo No. 1381 dated 8.7.1980 (Annexure-1).2. Petitioners' contention is that by the said resolution (Annexure-1), all the Typists and Copyists working in the Collectorates on remuneration basis were declared as Government Servant and their service conditions and rules and regulations were made same and similar to that of Class III posts of the State Government employees and the scale of Lower Division Clerk was approved for them.3. The petitioners' further case is that they started getting the scale and other benefits as per Annexure-1 but their services were reckoned with effect from 12.11.1986 on the ground that by Appointment Order No. 3 of 1986 issued by the Establishment...
Md. Faiz Farooqui Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR480(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has challenged the entire proceedings of Certificate Case No. 3 (OS)/93-94, including the Order dated July 30, 2001, passed by the District Certificate Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. According to the petitioner, the certificate proceeding is without jurisdiction.2. It appears that the Collector and District Magistrate of Balasore (Orissa), 3rd respondent herein, sent a requisition on 20th February, 1993 to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur under Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, intimating therein, that the petitioner has not paid the revenue towards the excise duty, as was due from him.3. According to the petitioner, Bihar and Orissa were used to be guided by Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. After re-organization of the State and creation of State of Orissa, a separate Act, known as 'The Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962' came into force. By Section 69 of th...
Ranchi Cinema Employees Union Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR445(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This application has been filed by the petitioners against that part of the award of the Labour Court contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, whereby the Labour Court has not awarded the back wages to the members of the petitioners though order for their reinstatement was passed by him.2. The following dispute vide notification dated 18/06/1987 was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication: Whether the lock out of Sandhya Cinema, Purilia Road, Ranchi from 25/10/85 is justified? If not whether the workmen are entitled to re-employment or any other type of relief 3. Subsequently, by corrigendum dated 10th June 1988 the reference was amended and in the 3rd line of the reference in place of word 'reemployment' it was substituted as 'reinstatement'.The learned Labour Court by the impugned award, Annexure-4, held that the lock out declared by the Management was unjustified and illegal and, thereby, passed an order for reinstatement of the employees. It was...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1143]; [2006(4)JCR449(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the Industrial Award dated 26.5.1995 (Annexure 1) passed by respondent No. 2 in Reference Nos. 109 of 1991 and 131 of 1991 directing to treat the case of respondents No. 4 to 11 under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and to offer re-employment within two months from the award becoming enforceable and to re-employ those who offer them for re-employment, without back wages, and subject to their physical fitness, failing which, pay them monthly salary as compensation every month.2. On 29th October, 1991, the following dispute was referred for adjudication which gave rise to Reference Case No. 109 of 1991:Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in terminating the services of the under mentioned workmen with effect from the date shown against their name, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?Sl. No. Name of the workmen Date o...
Chandu Lal V. Raja and Jogesh Kumar Raja Vs. State of Jharkhand and Mr ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ469; [2006(4)JCR403(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 01/09/1998 passed in C/II Case No. 766/98 under Sections 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also for quashing of the order dated 05/09/2003 dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the said order of taking cognizance.3. The facts in short are that a complaint as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application was lodged by the Respondent No. 2, Food Inspector, against, the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur alleging therein that the complainant Food Inspector visited the shop namely M/S Prince situated at 6, Natraj Mansion, Main Road, Bishtupur, Jamshedpur, the owner of which were the petitioners and purchased a Feeding Bottle from the said shop for chemical analysis and thereafter it was sent for analysis and according to the report of the Public Analyst the said Feeding Bott...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »