Kerala Court February 1952 Judgments
State Vs. E.C. Govindan Asan and Sons and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ901
ORDERKoshi, C.J.1. All these petitions are filed by the State to revise and set aside the orders passed by the learned First Class Magistrate, Chengannoor, in C.C. Nos. 15 to 19 of 1124. The complaints were filed by the Inspector of Factories, Kottayam, with the sanction of the District Magistrate, against the occupier and manager of certain cashew factories, f6r offences said to have been committed by them in not providing with the necessary amenities in the factories as directed in the Factories Act VIII (8) of 1114. The Inspector of Factories found on 6.8.1123 that the accused had contravened the provisions of Sections 20, 32(b) and 51 of the Factories Act, and Rule 67 framed under Section 22 and had committed an offence punishable under Section 74(2) of the said Act. Section 75 of the Act provided that no Court was to take cognisance of any offence under the Act or any rule or order thereunder, other than an offence under Section 62 or Section 64, unless a complaint thereof was mad...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1952
Reported in: (1952)ILLJ612Ker
ORDERSubramanya Iyer, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari to bring up and quash the proceedings in adjudication No. 11 of 1950 on the file of the first respondent, the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam, and for incidental orders or directions under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India.2. The facts are these. The applicant Company are the stockists and distributors of petrol in Ernakulam. In July 1948 a quantity of petrol from their stock was taken out in a lorry belonging to but without the knowledge of the company. A prosecution for theft at the instance of the police ensued. The third respondent was charged with having driven the lorry, and respondents 2 and 4 were charged with having taken the quantity of petrol from out of the company's stock. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 were employees under the company. There were some other accused in the case who were also the company's employees. All the accused were placed under suspension pending the trial. The prosecution end...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›