Jharkhand Court May 2008 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.
Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh Vs. Tata Steel Limited
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR294(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.3.2008 passed in WP (L) No. 4637 of 2006 wherein learned Single Judge refused to modify the order dated 27.4.2007 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The impugned order reads as under:Mr. P.P.N. Rai submitted that this application has been filed for modification of the order dated 27.4.2007 directing the petitioner to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, from the date of the Award. He further submitted that the current wages are also not paid. He relied on interim order dated 28.6.2007 passed in WP (L) No. 208 of 2006 and submitted that in that case wage was allowed from the date of pronouncement of the Award.Mr. Rajiv Ranjan on the other hand submitted that the said order dated 27.4.2007 was passed after hearing the parties and therefore it should not be modified on the basis of order passed in other case thereafter. He further submitted that after reaching the age of supera...
South Eastern Railway Station Porters Union, B.S.C. Through Secretary ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR189(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to utilize the licensed porters of Bokaro Steel City Railway Station for loading and unloading of parcels at the said station. It has been stated that about 58 porters were granted license for loading and unloading of parcels in the year 1991 by the Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Adra by his letter dated 12.7.1991 and since then the said porters were engaged for loading and unloading of parcels and they were being paid wages by the Station Master, Bokaro Railway Station for the said work. The President of South Eastern Railway Station Porters Union had filed a case being M.W. Claim No. 133/05 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad in 2005 complaining payment of less than the prescribed minimum wages. The said case was decided in favour of the porters directing the Railway to pay them the minimum wages according to the provisions of the Min...
N.B. Hi-tech Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Boar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar31; [2008(3)JCR316(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to restore his electrical connection which has been disconnected after inspection on 10.4.2008 on the alleged theft of electricity. It has been stated that while disconnecting the electrical line of the petitioner, the respondents have arbitrarily assessed the tentative loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 88,09,000/-. The petitioner has claimed that the monthly bill of electric consumption was less than Rs. 1,00.000/-, but the respondents while assessing the tentative loss, have arbitrarily quoted the amount of more than Rs. 88 lacs without any basis whatsoever. The respondents have also not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. 2003 and without giving any provisional bill and without affording any opportunity of raising objection, have disconnected the petitioner's line which has greatly affected not only the factory, but also the livel...
Radhakant Goswami Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR568(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for early hearing and disposal of the writ petition.2. It has been stated that the petitioner is an old man aged about 75 years and has been suffering from heart ailment and on that ground has prayed for fixation of early date of heading for disposal of the writ petition under the hearing for admission.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the said fact.4. In view of the above, this interlocutory application is allowed. The writ petition shall be heard today itself, as there is no objection from any party.5. I.A. No. 1357 of 2008 stands disposed of.W.P.(S) No. 7778 of 20066. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made two prayer, one for a direction on the respondents to pay the consolidated pension to the petitioner, which is payable to the retired employee of the University, who retired prior to 1.1.1996 and another for a direction on the respondents to pay the ...
Baba Glass Industries Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR564(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent to restore the coal linkage 4quota, which was earlier given to the petitioner.2. It has been stated that the petitioner was allocated 1157 M.T. Steam Coal for its consumption. The petitioner had been regularly lifting the said quota/stock of coal from the Respondent-BCCL.3. In the beginning of the year 2005, the respondents introduced a system of 'E-Auction'. In that system, every linked or non-linked unit was supposed to participate in the 'E-Auction' for purchasing coal of its need. Even the parties, non- participating in the 'E-Auction', were supposed to pay the price fixed or quoted under the said scheme.4. The system of 'E-Auction' was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 20471 of 2005 and connected matter held the 'E-Auction' unconstitutional.5. According to the petitioner, since the matter regarding 'E- Auction' was pending before ...
Vishal Briquetting Industries Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR565(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to restore the coal linkage quota, which was earlier given to the petitioner.2. It has been stated that the petitioner was allocated 1157 M.T. Steam Coal for its consumption. The petitioner had been regularly lifting the said quota/stock of coal from the Respondent-BCCL.3. In the beginning of the year 2005, the respondents introduced a system of 'E-Auction'. In that system, every linked or non-linked unit was supposed to participate in the 'E-Auction' for purchasing coed of its need. Even the parties, non- participating in the 'E-Auction', were supposed to pay the price fixed or quoted under the said scheme.4. The system of 'E-Auction' was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 20471 of 2005 and connected matter held the 'E-Auction' unconstitutional.5. According to the petitioner, since the matter regarding 'E- Auction' was pending before ...
Lalita Devi Vs. Bccl Dhanbad and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR563]; [2008(4)JCR159(Jhr)]; (2008)IIILLJ621Jhar
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated 9th August, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 253 of 2000, whereby the petitioner's application for impleading her partly in the said reference has been rejected.2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased concerned workman, namely, Etwari Ram. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was given monetary benefit in lieu of employment till her son is not provided with employment. In the meanwhile, the respondent No. 5, who claims to be the petitioner's stepson, raised a dispute, claiming his right for compassionate appointment. The dispute was referred to the said Tribunal by the appropriate Government for adjudication. The term of the reference is as follows:Whether the action of the management of BCCL Koyla Bhawan, in refusing employment to the dependent son of ' the dec...
Khagendra Nath Maity @ Khagan Maity and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR194(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.2. Petitioners, who are accused for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4(1)/21(5) of the Jharkhand Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957 and also under Section 12(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant case is totally misconceived against the petitioners, who in fact have no concern whatsoever with the establishment, in which the workers were employed and had suffered accidental death and the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners were arranging the mining affairs, is totally false. Learned counsel explains that the license for the mining lease was never granted in favour of the petitioners, rather it was granted to one Manoj Kumar Maity, who was in fact the person performing the mining business and even otherwise, the death was not ...
Om Prakash Chhawnika Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR195(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner, who is accused for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 386, 392 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case is placed entirely on false and concocted allegations and, even as admitted by the complainant himself in the complaint petition, the same complainant had filed a complaint case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC in which the petitioner was granted bail and being frustrated, the complainant has filed the present com-plaint petition only to harass the petitioner.4. Learned counsel adds that the original grudge of the complainant against the petitioner is that the petitioner happens to be a contender in the matter of acquisition of a piece of land in prime locality. The complainant asserts that he had entered into an agreement of ...
Thakur Chandrabhushan Singh and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR572(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of Deep Co-operative Housing Construction Committee. The Khasmahal land pertaining to Plot No. 605 was allotted to the said Committee for the purpose of construction of houses. The applications were made for sanction of the building plan. The plan was approved, so far as ground floor is concerned. The application for sanction of plan for further construction was made by the petitioners as far back as in the year 1989, which is still pending even after lapse of about 19 years.2. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur by his Letter No. 3365 dated 21st December, 2006 issued notice to the petitioners asking them to appear before him on 8th January. 2007 with relevant documents. In the said letter, it was mentioned, that faling appearance, appropriate action under the provisions of Khasmahal shall be taken against them. The petitioners appeared on 8th January, 2007 and submitted their reply, claiming that they are...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›