Karnataka Court May 2000 Judgments
Coorg and Mysore Coffee Co. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appella ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ781Kant
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The only question of law which was agitated by the appellant employer before the statutory authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short the 'Act') as also before the learned single Judge was as to whether the establishment of the appellant was seasonal in nature so as to attract the provisions of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act.2. For better appreciation, it will be proper to quote the Second Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, which reads thus.-'4. Payment of gratuity.- (1).......... (2).......... Provided........ Provided further that in the case of an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season,' 3. The appellant is the owner of Coffee Curing Works in Chickamagalur under the name and style of 'Chamundi Curing Works'. One Sakamma, being the mother of the private resp...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Nettur Technical Training Foundation, Bangalore Vs. S. M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ116
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Kasturi for the petitioner and Sri S. Vasanthakumar for the respondent. 2. The impugned order in this revision is one passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in M.A. No. 36 of 1996, dated 25-10-1996 allowing the application under Section 96(3)(c) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, and granting stay of an order passed by the petitioner herein in No. KV/AB/GTC 96. 3. Normally, against an order of stay pending disposal of the appeal, no revision petition is entertainable. But in view of the question of law raised, it has been admitted. Now it is taken up for final disposal. 4. The question of law that is raised in the revision petition is: 'Whether an industry which is also having certain training programme for training certain persons for recruitment for its own purposes and for training them for outside job elsewhere would be an 'Educational Institution' within the meaning of the Karnataka Educational Act, 1983 (Act 1 of 1995)?'5. The brief facts, as stated by ...
Tag this Judgment!Meghashyam Bhat Vs. Seetharam Jois
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2287; 2000(5)KarLJ106
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sudarshana Reddy, appearing for the respondent.2. The impugned order in the above revision petition is the one passed on I.A. II by the Munsiff, Sringeri in O.S. No. 167 of 1995 under Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, staying the proceedings till the disposal of LRMCR No. 1256/75-76 pending before the Land Tribunal, Sringeri.3. The suit in O.S. No. 191 of 1994 is one for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of 1 acre 1 gunta of agricultural land in Sy. No. 91 of Masige Village, Sringeri Taluk. It is claimed that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and got it under a partition dated 27-12-1974. After the partition, the plaintiff filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right. On 14-5-1987 in LRF No. 1256/75-76 the plaintiff has been granted occupancy right. After such grant, the name of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurushantha Pattedar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2388; 2000(4)KarLJ433
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. Writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. Issue rule.3. The petitioner was elected to the Gulbarga Zilla Panchayat from Gobbur constituency in the elections held in March 1995. The result of the election was published on 30-3-1995 in the Official Gazette. The petitioner's election was not challenged in any Court of law.4. The petitioner received a show-cause notice dated 13/17-7-1998 issued by the 2nd respondent. By the said show-cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for holding an office of profit. The petitioner gave his reply to the 2nd respondent.5. The petitioner submitted in his reply that he was working as Junior Clerk in Mahboob Shahi Gulbarga Mills, which was a private textile mill. Thereafter, the mill became the subsidiary unit of the National Textile Corporation (NTC), but the petitioner was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Division, Hubli (Now ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR622]; ILR2000KAR2156; 2000(1)KarLJ9; (2000)IILLJ1319Kant
1. The respondent in the writ appeal employed as a casual labour in the year 1982 in Dharwad Depot at KSRTC said to have been terminated from service on 8-6-1987 without any show-cause notice or enquiry and without payment of any retrenchment compensation. Being aggrieved sought the reference of the dispute. Accordingly, the dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. The appellant strenuously opposed the claim on the ground that the respondent was never in the employment in KSRTC at anytime. Further contended that the KSRTC is a statutory organisation for recruitment and appointment, there are statutory rules, wherein the selection and appointment to the establishment of KSRTC can be made only by inviting applications from General Public and conducting tests and interviews. The appointment of persons on casual basis is said to be not permitted in law. Further contends that the payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise.2. The Industrial Tribunal, Hubli (hereinafter ca...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Vs. Laxmana Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant298; ILR2000KAR2341; 2000(5)KarLJ477
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.By this reference, we are called upon to decide the following questions:'(1) Whether a transferee of a property purchasing the property by registered sale deed from the judgjudgment debtor can be said to be a person claiming under judgjudgment debtor and be held to be subject to all those liabilities and encumbrances to which the original transferor and judgjudgment debtor had been for the purpose of Section 146? (2) Whether the decree passed by the Court directing the original owner of the property i.e., judgjudgment debtor not to cause interference or obstruction in the plaintiff's user of that land (which has been later transferred to the respondent) and putting a rider on the right of the judgment debtor to the user of that land by him as well is binding on the subsequent transferee i.e., Purchaser thereof? (3) Whether the decree-holder was entitled to seek execution of that decree, in the above suit which was passed and granted permanent injunction with refer...
Tag this Judgment!N. Saraswathi Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2012; 2000(4)KarLJ478
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the application filed by her for appointment on compassionate ground.2. The facts in this case are that the petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. On that application the respondents issued an endorsement calling upon the petitioner to produce the order passed by the Civil Court in a pending dispute between the petitioner and the son of the first wife of the deceased employee and also to furnish no objection certificate by the guardian of the son through the first wife. This endorsement has made the petitioner to come to this Court on the ground that her case is to be considered for appointment as she is the widow of the deceased as per the rules. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 reads as follows.--'3. Eligibility for appointment.--(1) Appointment on compa...
Tag this Judgment!G.V. Ronad Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2668; 2000(6)KarLJ130
ORDER1. A Judicial Officer is before this Court challenging the order dated 25-7-1996 Annexure-A and for consequential relief of reinstatement with all benefits on the following facts.--2. Facts.--Petitioner was selected as a Munsiff in the year 1987. He completed his probationary period of his service and posted to various places in the State of Karnataka. Petitioner was working as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kudligi between 25-2-1991 and 15-9-1992. At the relevant point of time, the local Bar developed hostile attitude towards the petitioner and in particular its President. The Local Bar was also hostile even towards the earlier judicial officers who worked at Kudligi and also complained against the petitioner. Petitioner was kept under suspension by an order dated 23-4-1993 on the basis of the preliminary report dated 29-10-1992 by the Registrar (Vigilance). Articles of charge as per Annexure-B was thereafter followed. Several charges were framed against the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Lawrence Fernandes Vs. Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant55; ILR2000KAR4817; 2001(2)KarLJ324
ORDERV. Gopala, Gowda, J.1. The petitioner-Mr. Lawrence Fernandes is a Social Worker, Ex-Mayor of the erstwhile Bangalore City Corporation (now Bangalore Mahanagara Palike) and a tax-payer. He has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation questioning the competency of the Government of Karnataka in according sanction and release of certain amount under the impugned orders at Annexure-A and B from the budgetary allocation of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') to the students of 4th respondent-University College of Law and the 5th respondent-National Law School University of India who have represented India at the Phillip C.Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, 1998 held at Washington D.C. between 29th March and 5th April, 1998 and Model UN Summit held in New York, USA, from 8th to 12th July, 1998. The principal ground on which the impugned orders are attacked is that the State Government has no power...
Tag this Judgment!Kum. A.G. Ramya Vs. Syndicate Bank, Manipal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2619; 2000(3)KarLJ587
ORDER1. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar, the Apex Court was pleased to observe as under.-'The Courts shall endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however hard the case may be, it should never be done'.2. Keeping this salutary principles in view, let me consider the facts in the instant case whether it falls within the scope of the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds evolved by the respondent-Syndicate Bank.3. The Human Resources and Development Department (Manpower Planning Recruitment and Development Section) has circulated a Circular bearing No. 350/87/BC/HRDD/26/MPRDS, dated 17-10-1987 to all its branch offices in addition to the earlier circulars dated 11-9-1978, 31-3-1983 and 15-10-1986 on the subject 'Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds'. The scheme provides for appointment of one of the dependents of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »