Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker289
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. These appeals which raise common questions and were heard together by a Division Bench consisting of my learned brothers Isaac and Narayana Pillai, JJ. have come up before me on a reference by my Lord the Chief Justice under Section 23 of the Travancore-Cochn High Court Act, 1125 (Act V of 1125) in view of the different opinions expressed in the separate judgments delivered by the two learned Judges constituting the Division Bench. Under the terms of Section referred to above the scope of enquiry before me is limited to a consideration of those matters on which the learned Judges have disagreed.2. A. S. 690 of 1963 arises out of O. S. 83 of 1120 of the Munsiff's Court, Quilon and the appellant before this Court is the plaintiff. A. S. 691 of 1963 arises out of O. S. 1096 of 1120 of the Munsiff's Court, Quilon and the second plaintiff is the appellant A. S. 692 of 1963 arises out of O. S. 710 of 1121 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Quilon and the legal repres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ97Ker
M.U. Isaak, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership-firm, herein represented by its managing partner. It started an industry in 1959 under the style 'Cochin Metals and Alloys' and another industry in 1962 under the style 'Cochin Hollow Wares.' The former was engaged in non-ferrous sheet rolling, while the latter was manufacturing hollow wares, hospital wares, etc. The workers in these two Industries are represented by respondent 2, the Chemical and Engineering Workers' Union, Palluruthy. Disputes arose in 1967 between the management and the workers; and they were settled by an agreement dated 16 December 1967, which was to remain in force for one year. But in July 1968, respondent 2 again raised disputes on matters already settled; and in order to force the management to accept the fresh demands made by them, which according to the management were highly unreasonable and impossible of compliance, the workers led by respondent 2 started ' go-slow ' tactics, and began to indulge in violent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ118Ker
1. These two writ petitions raise common questions relating to the validity of Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the nature of the power conferred by the said section and the procedure to be followed by the appropriate Government in exercising such power and hence they have been heard together. The petitioner in Original Petition No. 721 of 1967 is the proprietor of a tile factory in Karuvannoor, Trichur. Original Petition No. 3216 of 1967 has been preferred by the managing director of a private limited company in Kottayam engaged in the business of operating motor transport service. Both these industrial establishments are governed by the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder.2. On the ground that there was delay on the part of the petitioners in making remittances of provident fund contributions and administrative charges, the Government of Kerala levied damages against them and directed the Regional Provide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker21
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J. 1. A single, simple point has been pressed before me in revision. The receiver of an estate, having allegedly mismanaged it, caused loss and the plaintiff, now found to be the owner by Court in the very litigation where the receiver was appointed, sued him in heavy damages. Whereupon the defendant-receiver moved by a memo that he be permitted to defend himself from out of the estate funds. The Trial Court, which appointed him, declined to accord the permission sought but on appeal the Subordinate Judge allowed the receiver's request. Meanwhile, as a matter of fact, the receiver himself was discharged but the suit against him survives. The plaintiff has come up in revision complaining that no appeal lay and further that his estate should not be used to finance the wrongdoer in defending himself against the consequences of the wrong to the estate. If no appeal lies, the second question does not arise. But this question is mixed up with whether there is power at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker251; 1970CriLJ1498
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J. 1. An old offender was charged with having committed theft of Rs. 36/- and an L.I.C. bill from the shirt pocket of one Kesavan at about 6 p.m. on 26-8-1968 from the municipal bus stand, Kottayam where Kesavan had gone to board a bus to Eruttupetta. The accused was caught red-handed and was taken to the Kottayam West Police Station. Being an old offender the accused was committed to the Sessions. In the Sessions Court, P.W. 1 filed a petition praying for the leave of the Court to compound the offence stating that the matter was settled between him and the accused and he did not desire to proceed with the case. As the value of the property stolen was only Rs. 36/- the owner of the property can compound the offence with the permission of the Court. The Court accordingly, accorded sanction and the compromise was recorded and the accused acquitted. 2. The point taken in the calendar revision is that even though an offence under Section 379, I.P.C. is compoundable, it c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ272Ker
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one for recovery of salary of the plaintiff from 1 April 1960 till the date of suit and also for direction to reinstate the plaintiff as a storekeeper in the Primo Pips Factory, Chavara, which was taken over by the Kerala State on 1 September 1959. Consequent on each taking over there was a scheme of retrenchment and the plaintiff was one of those who were given notice of such retrenchment. He was served with a notice on 8 April 1960 intimating him that he would stand retrenched with effect from 24 April 1960. This notice was put up on the notice-board on 25 March 1960. Though attempts were made repeatedly by the plaintiff to continue in service by representations made to Government, he did not succeed and was ultimately relieved on 14 October 1960. According to the plaintiff, such termination of his service was wrongful in that the requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute...
Tag this Judgment!