Karnataka Court May 2006 Judgments

Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. the Weighmen's Association a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3320; (2006)IIILLJ454Kant

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The weighmen who are working at APMC Yard at Tumkur and Tiptur have formed a Union. Through their Union they filed an application before the Competent Authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'). They contend that the APMC Yard is their employer within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. In the schedule attached to the application they have given the particulars of wages paid to them, the difference between the minimum wages payable and the wages actually paid and they have sought for compensation of 50% of the difference in the minimum wages. On service of notice, the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (for short, 'APMC') entered appearance. They specifically contend that the weighmen, the members of the applicant-association are neither employees employed by the APMC nor the APMC is an employer within the meaning of the Act. These weighmen who carry on the business are hot employees and the incidents of employment suc...

The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, represented by Its Secretar ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The weighmen who are working at APMC Yard at Tumkur and Tiptur have formed a Union. Through their Union they filed an application before the competent authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for short 'the Act'. They contend that the APMC Yard is their employer within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. In the schedule attached to the application they have given the particulars of wages paid to them, the difference between the minimum wages payable and the wages actually paid and they have sought for compensation of 50% of the difference in the minimum wages. On service of notice, the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee for short APMC entered appearance. They specifically contend that the Weighmen, the members of the applicant association are neither employees employed by the APMC nor the APMC is an employer within the meaning of the Act. These weighmen who carry on the business are not employees and the incidents of employment such as mon...

Shri K. Sippe Gowda S/o late Chikka Javaregowda (under orders of dismi ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, a dismissed Court Officer of the High Court of Karnataka has challenged in this writ petition the order of dismissal on several grounds. He has arrayed as the first respondent-The High Court of Karnataka represented by its Registrar General, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka as the second respondent and the Registrar (Judicial) as the third respondent. The second respondent is arrayed as party respondent because he is the disciplinary authority who has passed the order of dismissal. The Office has raised an objection on scrutiny of the papers to the effect that the petitioner should state in the cause-title who is the authorized representative of the second respondent. The petitioner in reply to the said office objection has stated, that the disciplinary authority who has passed the impugned order has been rightly impleaded in the said capacity as the administrative/disciplinary actions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice have been qu...

K. Sippe Gowda Vs. the High Court of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, a dismissed Court Officer of the High Court of Karnataka has challenged in this writ petition the order of dismissal on several grounds. He has arrayed as the first respondent-The High Court of Karnataka represented by its Registrar General, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka as the second respondent and the Registrar (Judicial) as the third respondent. The second respondent is arrayed as party respondent because he is the disciplinary authority who has passed the order of dismissal. The Office has raised an objection on scrutiny of the papers to the effect that the petitioner should state in the cause-title who is the authorized representative of the second respondent. The petitioner in reply to the said office objection has stated, that the disciplinary authority who has passed the impugned order has been rightly impleaded in the said capacity as the administrative/disciplinary actions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice have been qu...