Kerala Court December 1974 Judgments
Malayalam Plantations Ltd., CochIn Vs. Inspector of Plantations Mundak ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker86; [1975(30)FLR148]
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Full Bench as it involves a nice question relating to the scope of Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Central Act). That Act replaced the Kerala Maternity Benefit Act, 1957 from 15-8-1970. The 1st respondent-Inspector of Plantations, Mundakayam, inspected the appellant's estate on 6-5-1971 and on such inspection felt that 11 women workers were not given maternity benefit according to the provisions of the Central Act. This resulted in the issue of a notice to the 1st respondent to show cause why the balance amount due was not disbursed to them. The Superintendent of the appellant submitted hisexplanation stating that the workers work for six days in a week only. Sunday being a wageless holiday, that the workers are entitled to maternity benefit only on that basis and as such no more amount is due to them. The 1st respondent did not accept this explanation. He passed an order directing that these women workers are entit...
Tag this Judgment!Vannarath Parvathi Amma and ors. Vs. Vannarath Lakshmi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker147
G. Vishwanatha Iyer, J. 1. Defendants 4 to 14 are the appellants in this second appeal. Plaintiffs and the defendants are members of an undivided tavazhi tarwad and the suit is for partition of the B and C schedule properties. The appellants claim reservation of their rights under Exhibits B-10 which is an assignment of Exhibit B-2 kanakuzhikanom deed in respect of Item l and some trees in Item 2. There is no controversy regarding the validity of Ext. B-2 kanakuzhikanom deed. That was executed by a prior karanayan of the tavazhi in favour of a junior member by name Kamaran and a stranger by name Kannan. Kamaran was unmarried and died- On his death his half right devolved on the tavazhi, Kannan's right was transferred under Ext. B-6 to one Cheevvayi and the latter assigned under Ext. B-7 her rights to defendants 1 and 2. They subsequently transferred their rights to the 4th defendant who is the first appellant in this second appeal- The controversy relates to the character of Ext. B-7 a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V.N. Sundar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ477Ker
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. All these petitions challenge the validity of the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970, for short the Act which came into force on February 18, 1970, This Act replaced Ordinance 7 of 1969 which had had come into operation on December 10, 1969. The Act was superseded by the coming into force of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) passed by Parliament and which came into force on September 16, 1972. Section 14 of the Central Act specifically provides that the Central Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than the Central Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than that Act.2. Before we proceed to deal with the contentions raised by counsel it is necessary to state the scheme provided by the Act. Section 4 enjoins that 'gratuity shall be payable to an employee--(a)...
Tag this Judgment!Fathima Beebi Vs. M.K. Ravindranathan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker202
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. This petition has now come up to be dealt with on the merits. By our judgment D/- 27-11-1974 we upheld the preliminary objection raised by counsel on behalf of the Central Government that arguments based on rights arising out of the provisions in Articles 14 and 22(5) of the Constitution are not available to the petitioner for challenging either the order of detention or the Presidential Order under Article 359(1) of the Constitution.2. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Sri K. Velayudhan Nair urged four points before us in further arguments. He submitted that Ordinance 11 of 1974 promulgated by the President in purported exercise of the power conferred by Article 123 of the Constitution is invalid because there were no circumstances or materials available before the President which could have satisfied the President of the necessity of passing such an Ordinance at that time. He relied on the averments in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the petition in support of his su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›