Kerala Court November 1982 Judgments
Kerala Minerals Employees Congress Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ424Ker
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Second respondent - company - and its employees represented by four trade unions, respondents 3, 4,6 and 7 entered into conciliation settlement on 16th July, 1978. Its term expired on 30th June, 1981. Four trade unions submitted separate charters of demands in July, 1981. Negotiations between the management and the union having failed, the first respondent, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum was requested to intervene to effectuate settlement. First respondent held conciliation conferences in June and July, 1982 which led to fresh conciliation settlement on 24th July, 1982, a copy of the Memorandum of settlement being Ext. R2-A. Petitioner is a new trade union formed in 1979 and claims loyalty of majority of the employees of the second respondent. Under Ext. P1 the second respondent was informed about the formation of the petitioner-union. On 3rd July, 1981 the Union forwarded to the 3rd respondent a memorandum alleged to have been signed by the employe...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg) Co. Ltd., Mavoor Vs. the Appellate Commi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker110
ORDERM.P. Menon, J. The challenge in this batch of petitions is to the orders of the appellate authority constituted under Section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (Central Act 36/77), and the revised assessment orders passed on their basis. The petitioners who were the appellants before the 'appellate committee' are the Pulp Division and Staple Fibre Division of the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. at Mavoor. The orders passed in appeal are all marked as Ext. P-1, and the revised assessment orders, as Ext. P-2. Three grounds are urged, and they are:--(i). The Pulp Division is not a 'specified industry' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act, and no cess can consequently be levied in respect of that Division under Section 3;(ii). The proceedings of the appellate committee are vitiated by legal bias; and(iii). Rule 6 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978 relied on by the appellate committee for denying the benefi...
Tag this Judgment!Achuthan Pillai Vs. Marikar (Motors) Ltd., Trivandrum and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker81
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 25,090.05 said to be due to the plaintiff from the defendants under a hire purchase agreement in respect of a Bedford diesel lorry KLO 6676. Ext. A-1 dated 15-9-1969 is the hire purchase agreement, as per the terms of which the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 57,761.00 for the purchase o* the vehicle to be repaid in monthly instalments as provided for in the document. As per Ext. A-l agreement, the plaintiff is the owner of the vehicle, the 1st defendant is its hirer and the 2nd defendant is the guarantor for due payment of the instalments by the 1st defendant. After sometime the 1st defendant defaulted payment, whereupon the plaintiff took possession of the vehicle in August, 1970. Ext. A-4 dated 21-8-1970 evidences a subsequent arrangement to which the plaintiff and defendants 1, 3 and 4 are parties. In Ext. A-4 letter addressed by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff, it is stated that the 1st...
Tag this Judgment!Najeema Beevi Vs. Public Service Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ433Ker
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The same question arises in all these cases and that is whether an employee of the Kerala Public Service Commission could claim that he is a workman entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. We had occasion to consider the scope of the term 'workman' in the context of claim by temporary employees appointed under Rule 9(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 that they are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore their services should not be terminated except in accordance with Chapter V-A of the Act. We are referring to the decision in Umayammal v. State of Kerala 1983-I L.L.J. 267. The Full Bench said in that case thus:12. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply case the concept of the expression 'industry' has been put on a very wide canvass. Therefore those who contend that a particular establishment is not an industry, should satisfy the Court that th...
Tag this Judgment!H. Bhavarlal Vs. Vasudeva Moothan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker125
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property under a court sale held in E. P. No. 158 of 1965 in Small Cause Suit No. 390 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat and for an injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from taking delivery of the property from the plaintiff, in pursuance of the order in E. A. No. 743 of 1968 in the aforesaid E, P.2. The 1st defendant had filed O. S. No. 54 of 1956 on the file of the Sub Court, Bangalore and had obtained an order for attachment before judgment of the property involved in the suit. The plaintiff obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant in Small Cause Suit number 390 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat. The suit property was brought to sale in E. P. No. 158 of 1965 in execution of the small cause decree and the decree-holder-plaintiff purchased the property in the Court-auction sale held on 20-12-1965. Ext. A1 dated 14-10-196...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Workers Federation Vs. Kerala State Electrici ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ30Ker
Narendran, J.1. The points that arise for consideration in these cases are: Whether the Assistant Engineers of the Kerala State Electricity Board are workmen as defined iin Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the Act? Even if they are not workmen can the workmen of the Board raise a dispute on behalf of the Assistant Engineers also if they have got a community of interest with the Assistant Engineers? Will the words 'any person' in Section 2(k) of the Act defining 'industrial dispute' mean that a dispute can be raised by workmen on behalf of employees other than workmen? If an Assistant Engineer joins a strike when the unions of workmen and Assistant Engineers call for a token strike for a day, can he be proceeded against for violation of rule 86 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960? Is the suspension discriminatory if only some of the Assistant Engineers who joined the strike were suspended? 2. Petitioners 1 and 4 in O.P. No. 5976 of 1982 are...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Kottayam Dt. Co-operative M.S.U. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribun ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ225Ker
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The petitioner herein is the Kottayam District Co-operative Milk Supplies Union Ltd. The 2nd respondent was employed under the petitioner as an attender in the petitioner's branch depot at Changancherry. On 8th May, 1976, he was found dealing with milk in unsealed bottles at the premises of the depot and the milk was found on analysis to contain 50 per cent added water. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the depot manager for misconduct, that is adulteration of milk with a view to make personal gains. He was kept under suspension with effect from 5th July, 1976. The enquiry committee constituted by the disciplinary action committee of the petitioner conducted domestic enquiry and found both of them guilty of the conduct. The disciplinary action committee considered the report and accepted it on 24th July, 1977 and resolved to remove the 2nd respondent from service as punishment. It was decided to impose a lesser punishment on the depot manager. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Manari Parvathi Amma and ors. Vs. Nellikkal Parvathi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker127
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. A common question as to the correctness of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Balakrishna Menon v. Rajagopala Menon (1974 Ker LT 85) is raised in both these Second Appeals.2. Defendants 2 and 5 are the appellants in S. A. No. 749 of 1977. The suit is for partition of one item of property as belonging to the Manari tavazhi of Nellikkal tarwad. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 are the members of the tavazhi and the 1st defendant is its karanavan. The plaintiffs seek partition ignoring Ext. B3 lease dated 13-1-1958, granted by the prior karanavan kannan Nair to his niece the 2nd defendant. The suit was contested by defendants 3 and 5. According to them the plaintiffs are not members of the Manari tavazhi. The lease Ext. B3 is valid and that in any event, the 2nd defendant is entitled to the benefits of Section 7 of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs are ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Peerukannu and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ410
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. Often vehicles, vessels or other conveyances are seized for the carriage of commodities in contravention of the provisions of various enactments. These conveyances are liable to be confiscated if in the enquiry that follows the offence is proved. Some enactments provide for an option to the owner to pay a fine of not less than one half of the value of the conveyance in lieu of its confiscation. The question that arises for consideration is whether the authorities can take their own time to conduct the enquiry resulting in the virtual destruction of the conveyance by the vagaries of weather or otherwise.2. In these cases two lorries belonging to the petitioners were seized as early as 13-3-1982 for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution) Act, 1982. The lorries are kept at the premises of the Noyyattinkara police Station. The petitioners challenged the seizure of the vehicles in original petitions filed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›