Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR18; 1998(1)KarLJ1
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The point of law required to be settled in these appeals is:'Whether in a case where order of dismissal of a workman is proved to have been passed without holding any inquiry and consequently is justified by the management, before the Labour Court, the workman would be entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of the award or the order of dismissal would become effective from the date it is passed notwithstanding the non-holding of the domestic inquiry?'2. In support of the rival contentions the learned Counsel for the parties have relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in:(1) P.H. Kalyani v M/s. Air France, Calcutta, (2) The Oriental Textile Finishing Mills Amritsar v The Labour Court, Jullundur and Others, (3) The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and RubberCompany of India (Pvt.) Limited v The Management and Others , (4) D.C. Roy v The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, M.P. and Others, (5) Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited v Gujarat Steel Tub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ118
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal, but modifying the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. The petitioner is the first accused before the Trial Court. He along with others were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 509 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The accused were tried for the said offences as they pleaded not guilty to the above charges. In proof of the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of 11 witnesses and 10 documents. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the evidence on record held the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324, Indian Penal Code only and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-with default clause. He acquitted the other accused. There is no appeal against the order of acquittal. The first accused filed a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)430; 1998CriLJ1171
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal, but modifying the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. The petitioner is first accused before the trial Court. He along with others were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 509 r/w 149, IPC. The accused were tried for the said offences as they pleaded not guilty to the above charges. In proof of the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of 11 witnesses and 10 documents. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the evidence on record held the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324, IPC only and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default clause. He has acquitted the other accused. There is no appeal against the order of acquittal. The first accused filed a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan. He has passed the impugned order.2. The order is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. The point of law required to be settled in these appeals is : 'Whether in a case where order of dismissal of a workman is proved to have been passed without holding any inquiry and consequently is justified by the management, before the Labour Court, the workman would be entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of the award or the order of dismissal would become effective from the date it is passed notwithstanding the non-holding of the domestic enquiry ?' 2. In support of the rival contentions the learned Counsel for the parties have relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in : (1) P. H. Kalyani v. M/s. Air France, Calcutta : (1963)ILLJ679SC (2) The Oriental Textile Finishing Mills Amritsar v. The Labour Court, Jullundur & Ors. : (1971)IILLJ505SC (3) The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. The Management & Ors. : (1973)ILLJ278SC (4) D. C. Roy v. The P.O., Labour Court, M.P. & Ors. : [1976]3SCR801 . (5) Guja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR375; 1998(4)KarLJ610
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated May 20, 1997, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore in No. CIN. Appeal 2 of 1997-98, and the petitioner has sought the quashing of that order. 2. The facts of the case as appears from the record are that earlier that is in 1991, in pursuance of proceedings in Arbitration No.l of 1971, finally registered Sale Deed dated 29-8-1991, was executed in favour ofRespondent No.3 by the other partners and the application for grant of permit was made by the petitioner and the respondent alleges to have made the application for permit, while the fact that is respondents having moved the application, is denied by the petitioner. This is not very material fact at this juncture. The main application for re-grant of license made by the petitioner has not been disposed of till today, instead the Licensing Authority granted a temporary permit that is temporary license in favour of the present petitioner vide, order dated 12-4-1997, Ann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ55
ORDER1. I have heard the learned Advocates. One of the points canvassed on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal and that it should not have come directly to this Court. Mr. Shetty on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to an earlier decision of this Court in K.S.R.T.C. v Pauli Govis and Another, wherein my Brother Thakur, J., while going into the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition in situations where the alternate remedy is available has laid down that there is no absolute bar in approaching the High Court though, the party would be governed by the self-imposed restriction of the Courts namely that if an alternate remedy is available normally this Court should not entertain the writ petition. The principal reason for this is because the party cannot be permitted to bypass the straight remedy available under the law and in the process, the High Court cannot be overloaded with litigation which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998ACJ841; AIR1998Kant214; [1998]92CompCas146(Kar); ILR1997KAR3122; 1997(4)KarLJ574
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. Heard Mr. D. O. Kotresh, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. S. V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned standing counsel for the respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited. 2. The fundamental facts are not in dispute. Pursuant to a motor vehicle accident, which had taken place on June 19, 1987, at 9.15 a.m., one Kum. Sridevi, aged about 21 years and still a student, suffered spot death. The owner of the vehicle being lorry No. MYL 5151 managed to obtain an insurance policy from the third respondent on that very day at 10.15 a.m., i.e., subsequent to the accident. In the said context, the only question which has fallen for our consideration is as to whether the insurance company can still be held to be liable for compensation of Rs. 33,000 as awarded by the Tribunal in the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal : [1990]2SCR570 , wherein the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000ACJ126; ILR1998KAR2583
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Two interesting points of law, both of far reaching consequences have been agitated in this pair of appeals which concern the same unfortunate incident. On 30.5.1992 a Premier Padmini Car met with an accident in which the son and the niece of the insured Narayana Shetty died. Two separate claims were preferred before the M.A.C.T., Befgaum and by order dated 6.7.1996 which is a common order in both the petitions a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- less Rs.25,000/- already received was awarded in respect of the death of the son and a sum of Rs.1,02,400/- less Rs.25,000/- already received was awarded in the case of the death of the girl Anitha along with interest and costs. By the present two appeals, the Insurance Co. has seriously contested the awards in respect of certain specified heads only. There is a common challenge in respect of both of them whereby the appellants contend that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which has been paid separately under a separate clause of the policy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2000)ACC36
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. Heard Mr. D.O. Kotresh, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited.2. The fundamental facts are not in dispute. Pursuant to a motor vehicle accident, which had taken place on 19.6.1987 at 9.15 a.m., one Kum. Sridevi, aged about 21 years and still a student, suffered spot death. The owner of the vehicle being Lorry No. MYL 5151 managed to obtain insurance policy from the 3rd respondent on that very day at 10.15 a.m. i.e., subsequent to the accident. In the said context, the only question which has fallen for our consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company can still be held to be liable for compensation of Rs. 33,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal in the present case.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Limited v. Ram Dayal : [1990]2SCR570 wherein the Apex ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ380
1. I have heard both the learned Advocates. This is one more of the horrifying accidents where the guilty parties are the KSRTC drivers and wherein, not one but two of the Corporation's buses are involved. The deceased was boarding the State Transport vehicle when another bus belonging to the Corporation approached at high speed and collided withthe bus in question, resulting in, the deceased being crushed under the vehicle and killed on the spot. The Tribunal after evaluating the various heads awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,13,250/-. After deduction, the extra amount has been paid with cost and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. This order has been assailed in the present appeal.2. The learned Advocate who represents the appellant has pointed out to me that there is an obvious error in awarding compensation under head No. 6, in as far as the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 20. Having regard to the ages in question, he has demonstrated that the multiplier of 15 w...
Tag this Judgment!