Karnataka Court August 1998 Judgments
M. Srinivasa Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director Bharat Earth Mover ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR600; 1999(1)KarLJ268
ORDER1. Petitioner was an employee of respondent-Company -- Bharat Earth Movers Limited (for short, 'BEML'). By an order dated 4-1-1993, the Disciplinary Authority of the company had passed an order removing the petitioner from the services of the respondent-Company, which order came to be confirmed by the Appellate Authority in an appeal filed by the delinquent by his order dated 22-6-1993 as a result of which, the petitioner has approached this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution taking exception to the aforesaid orders.2. Brief facts are: while working as Assistant Manager in the respondent-Company, he was served with a show-cause notice bearing No. 24(85)/4077 dated 10-6-1992 inter alia directing him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for alleged misconduct. In the notice it was alleged that the petitioner had attended II shift on 37 days without permission and had come late to the factory on 30 days and on 9 days he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Siddarajamma Vs. the Land Tribunal, Tarikere and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ682
ORDER1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel on both sides. 2. This revision arises from the judgment and order dated 4-4-1988 of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur District, Chickmagalur made in LRA No. 82 of 1987 on its file conferring occupancy right on respondent 2-Kempirangaiah in respect of 1 acre of the agricultural land in Sy. No. 4 of Rangenahalli, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk in Chickmagalur District by setting aside the order dated 30-4-1987 of the Land Tribunal, Tarikere, made in LRT No. 7 of 1976-77 rejecting respondent 2's application in Form No. 7 which was filed for grant of occupancy right in respect of the said 1 acre as also another acre of the land in the same survey number. 3. Certain undisputed facts emerging from the material on record are as stated hereinbelow. One T. Rangaiah was the owner of the said 2 acres of the land in Sy. No. 4 of Rangenahalli Village in Tarikere Taluk of Chickmagalur District. On 6-5-1966 he entered into an agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Renuka and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ318
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. V. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5.2. The petitioners are presently working as teachers in Saraswathi Higher Primary School, Bidar (in short, the 'Institution').which is being run by the 6th respondent Saraswathi Shikshana Vikas Samithi, Bidar. They have filed the present writ petitions inter alia, questioning the validity of Conditions (i) to (ix) of the Government Order No. ED 196 PMC 94, dated 17-6-1995 (Annexure-C) by which the educational institution was admitted to grant-in-aid by the Government. The said conditions read as under:'(1) Grant is given only from the date of this order. Under no circumstances arrears will be paid. (2) Before admitting the school to grant, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat should personally verify and should be satisfied with regard to the fulfilment of all the rules and conditions of the Grant-in-Aid Code. (3) The D...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Karuppaiah Vs. the Canteen Officer (Aqmg) Headquarters, Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ325
ORDER1. Petitioner was working as a salesman in the Karnataka and Goa Sub-area Canteen (for short, 'Canteen'). By the impugned order dated 15-2-1993, his services were terminated by the Canteen Officer, Bangalore. It is the correctness or otherwise of this order, which is questioned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on the sole ground that the impugned order could not have been passed without holding an enquiry. Therefore, the order is bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Respondents, besides contesting the petition on merits, have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition and it is specifically asserted that the Canteen is not the instrumentality of the State falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution and not 'other authority' used in Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of the contention they strongly rely upon the observations made by learned Single Judge of Punjab ...
Tag this Judgment!Muniyappa and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant57; 1999(4)KarLJ42
ORDER1. Removal of the petitioners from the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat pursuant to a no-confidence motion moved against them has been called in question in these writ petitions. The solitary ground urged is that the meeting of the Grama Panchayat convened to discuss the motion had been held more that 30 days after a notice of the motion was given and was therefore in violation of the provisions of Rule 3(2) of what are known as Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Rule 3 no doubt envisages the holding of a meeting of the Grama Panchayat not later than 30 days from the date on which a notice of no-confidence is moved against the Adhyaksha or the Upadhyaksha under sub-rule (1) of the said rule. The petitioners maintain that the said provision is mandatory and a meeting convened more than 30 days after the receipt of the no-confidence motion by the Assistant Commissioner would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Indira Bai and Another Vs. the Tahsildar, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad Di ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR204; 1999(6)KarLJ330
ORDER1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners who are mother and son have sought for quashing the order of respondent 2-Additional District Judge, Dharwad dated June 21, 1995 in M,A. No. 320 of 1991, Annexure-C is the order and Annexure-D is the copy of the decree in appeal. In that appeal under Section 3 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respondents 3 and 4 challenged the correctness of the order of respondent 1-Tahsildar, Hubli Taluk, Hubli dated 28-5-1991 in WPA:CR-4 of 1990-91 purported to have been made in exercise of Section 6 of the Act, regranting 33-01 acres of land comprised in 5 Survey Numbers 519-A, 519-B, 520, 535/2-B and 536 of KoliwadVillage in favour of Narayana Ramachandra Patil, husband of 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner and respondents 5 and 6.By the impugned order dated June 21, 1995 respondent 2 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of respo...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Rao B.M. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1288Kant
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act. He contended that he was working in the Ware-house Canteen of the 2nd respondent-Management. He alleged that till 1989 he has worked in the Warehouse Canteen where he was appointed in 1986. He was in continuous service under the Management and the Management being a public sector undertaking, was bound to pay his salary. The petitioner also contended that in 1986 he was paid daily wages of Rs. 10 per day. That no rest or overtime allowance or other benefits were given to the petitioner. He alleged that he was illegally refused employment with effect from February 22, 1990. Therefore, he made a claim under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act for wages from September 18, 1986 till the date of refusal of work to him, amounting to Rs. 47,360.2. The Management disputed the claim. It raised the contention that the petitioner was not at all working under them and there was no master and servant...
Tag this Judgment!General Secretary, Bharath Earth Movers Employees Association Vs. Depu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ190Kant
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-A order dated November 7, 1994 of the Appellate Authority constituted under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and Rule 7-A of the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner applied for incorporating the following clause in the bye-law; '18.9-- 'If a workman remains absent for more than 10 days and/or absents himself beyond the period of leave originally granted, or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment, unless he returns within 10 days of the expiry of the notice of termination and explains to the satisfaction of the management the reasons for his inability to return before the expiry of the leave.'2. When this application came up for consideration the Certifying officer heard the contentions and passed Annexure - E order certifying the bye-law in the following manner:'If a workman remains absent unauthorisedly for more than 10 days or absents for m...
Tag this Judgment!M. Muniyappa and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3989
T.S. Thakur, J 1. Removal of the petitioners from the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat pursuant to a no confidence motion moved against them has been called in question in these Writ Petitions. The solitary ground urged is that the meeting of the Grama Panchayat convened to discuss the motion had been held more than 30 days after a notice of the motion was given and was therefore in violation of the provisions of Rule 3(2) of what are known as Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Rule 3 no doubt envisages the holding of a meeting of the Grama Panchayat not later than 30 days from the date on which a notice of no confidence is moved against the Adhyaksha or the Upadhyaksha under Sub-rule 1 of the said rule. The petitioners maintain that the said provision is mandatory and a meeting convened more than 30 days after the receipt of the no confidence motion by the Assistant Commissioner w...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Karuppaiah Vs. the Canteen Officer (Aqmq) Hq Karnataka and Goa Su ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3531
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner was working as a Salesman in the Karnataka and Goa Sub-area canteen (for short 'canteen'). By the impugned order dated 15.2.1993, his services were terminated by the Canteen Officer, Bangalore. It is the correctness or otherwise of this order, which is questioned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on the sole ground that the impunged order could not have been passed without holding an enquiry. Therefore, the order is bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Respondents, besides contesting the petition on merits, have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition and it is specifically asserted that the Canteen is not the instrumentality of the State falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution and not 'other authority' used in Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of the contention they strongly rely upon the observations made by learned single Jud...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »