Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ287Ker
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The respondents in these four appeals are proprietors of firms coming within the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme framed thereunder. The facts in these cases are similar, and the cases were disposed of by the lower Court in a common judgment. The facts are also not in dispute. The prosecution was under Sections 406 and 409 of the Penal Code in that the respondents did not remit the deductions they made from the wages of their employees into the Reserve Bank or the State Bank of Travancore. The lower Court acquitted the respondents and hence the appeals by the State.2. The admitted facts are that the contributions to be deposited by the employers were not deposited during a few months. During those months they sent returns regularly: and in those returns also it was not stated that they made the deposits. The case of the respondents in their statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that they did not know...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ514Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. A dispute between the management and the union of workmen of J. & P. Coats (India) (Private), Ltd., Koratti, was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Calicut. The issue referred was:Additional bonus for the years ending 31 December 1960 and 1961.2. The management-company had already paid bonus to the workmen for the years in question at 5 per cent of the basic wages and dearness allowance earned for the years in question. The union claimed 10 per cent bonus for the year 1960 and 25 per cent for the year 1961. At the hearing before the tribunal, the claim for additional bonus for the year 1960 was not pressed, In respect of the claim for the year 1961, the management and the union were at issue about the items of reckoning to enter into the computation both of the gross profits as well as the permissible deductions. These were reflected in their respective worksheets filed before the tribunal, Ex. M. 4 by the management, and Ex. W. 2 by the u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker188
Narayana Pillai, J. 1. The principal ouestion raised in this appeal is whether the appellant who took a lease of an item of property pending a suit for partition of a Marumakkathayam tarwad from one of the parties to that suit is entitled to the benefits of Act I of 1964; the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and Act 29 of 1958, the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act. 2. Stated in its barest essentials the position which the facts disclose is as follows : The suit for partition was filed in the year 1102 M. E, The preliminary decree was passed on 2-4-1108 M. E. corresponding to 12-12-1932. The 43rd defendant, a member of the tarwad, leased out in 1113 M.E. an item of property covered by the decree schedule and in his possession to the appellant who was not a party to the suit. A commission was issued pursuant to the preliminary decree. Accepting the report, Ext. IX, of the commissioner the property in dispute was allotted by the final decree which was passed on 28-2-1958 to the sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker313; (1970)ILLJ450Ker
ORDERV. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Calicut in I. D. No. 19 of 1965 setting aside the order passed by the petitioner company discharging from their service the 2nd respondent who was a production worker on probation and ordering his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.2. The award in question was passed by the Tribunal on a petition preferred before It by the 2nd respondent under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The 2nd respondent had been appointed by the management as a production worker as per order dated 8-1-1964 (M-2). It was expressly stipulated in that order that the appointee was to be on probation for one year with effect from 1-1-1964 and that if his work and conduct were found to be satisfactory he will be confirmed in his appointment at the end of the probationary period. On 19-1-1965 the management terminated his services as per Ext. W.2 order by which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker54; (1970)ILLJ281Ker
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J. 1. By Ex. P-2 dated 10th July 1968 the State Government, the first respondent, promoted and appointed the fourth respondent as Conservator of Forests on Rs. 1000-1300 in the newly Created Working Plan and Research Circle provisionally pending selection of a suitable officer by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The fourth respondent was a Deputy Conservator of Forests. The petitioner, another Deputy Conservator of Forests who is senior to the fourth respondent and who has also been selected for IFS, impugns the said order in this writ petition. The second respondent is the Union of India and the third respondent the Chief Conservator of Forests.2. Before the formation of IFS in 1966, the petitioner, three others and the fourth respondent were all in the State Forest Service as Deputy Conservators of Forests. On the formation of IFS, a selection was made for IFS, wherein the petitioner and the three others were selected and the fourth respondent was not selecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker286
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This Civil Revision petition attacks orders passed in proceedings which, right from the start, seem to have stemmed from a confusion.2. A suit for recovery of possession was filed by the sole plaintiff in a suit who died pendente lite. On his death the present revision petitioners filed a petition to get themselves impleaded as plaintiffs 2 and 3 and to get 3 other heirs impleaded as defendants 3, 4 and 5 because those 3 persons were outside the country and their signatures could not be obtained for getting them impleaded as co-plaintiffs. Notice was being taken from time to time by the petitioners to the 3 others and there was considerable neglect in renewing the notices. The Court ultimately said that no further adjournment would be granted and on the adjourned date again there was default and so the Court dismissed the suit for default. The revision petitioners thereupon filed a petition for restoration of the suit, which again was considered by the tria...
Tag this Judgment!