Kerala Court February 1969 Judgments
A. Ibrahim Kunju Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ker65
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This writ petition, which I propose to allow, underscores the need of the administrator to be aware of the new frontiers of natural justice, now more than ever before, since on the one hand a welfare-oriented, activist government does, and has necessarily to exercise powers affecting the civil rights of the citizen in a plurality of ways, and on the other, our democratic Constitution entitles every member of the community to expect observance of the rule of law which implies the essential norms of administrative propriety summed up in the expressive, though hackneyed, phrase natural justice.2. The facts, relevant to explain the issues raised in the present petition, are few. A co-operative society whose affairs were committed to the management of a Board, was faring ill and so the Deputy Registrar, after a preliminary probe, submitted a report which revealed several, serious irregularities in the functioning of the society. Alerted thus, the Joint Registrar...
Tag this Judgment!Provident Fund Inspector Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar (Receiver)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ455Ker
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The Special First Class Magistrate (for Labour Laws) acquitted the respondent in these cases, who was prosecuted by the appellant, the Provident Fund Inspector, under Paras. 76 (a), 76 (c) and 76 (e) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme read with Section 14 and 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. The two grounds of acquittal were that the appellant did not obtain sanction from the Sub-Court at Dindigul, which appointed the respondent as receiver in Original Suit No. 19 of 1963 on its file, and that the respondent was not an 'employer' coming within Section 2(e)(ii) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act.2. The counsel of the appellant has argued the second point first. The counsel has pointed out that the reasoning of the Magistrate on this question is palpably wrong. The definition in Section 2(e)(ii) states that in relation to an establishment like the one before me ' the person who or the authority which has the ultimate control over the affairs of the e...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Malleables (Private) Ltd. Vs. Its workmen (represented by CochI ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ122Ker
M.U. Isaak, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Original Petition No. 515 of 1966. The appellant is the petitioner, the Cochin Malleables (Private), Ltd. There was an industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen represented by respondent 1, in which one of the issues was the confirmation of 43 workmen in the service of the appellant. This dispute was pending adjudication as Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1963 before the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam. Then the appellant by a notice dated 17 September 1963 terminated the service of 41 out of the 43 workmen with effect from 1 October 1963, in purported exercise of its power under its standing orders, a copy of which is Ex. F. 3. Respondent 1, again raised a dispute on this matter; and it was referred by the Government to the labour court (Kerala State), Quilon, who is respondent 2 in this appeal. This reference is Industrial Dispute No. 11 of 1964.2. Before the labour court, respondent 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›