Kerala Court September 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Indian Tourism Development Corporation Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ190Ker
Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The employer is before this court.2. Ext. P1 is under challenge 3. The facts relevant and requisite to dispose of the issue arising for consideration in the O.P., briefly stated are:4. Respondents 2 and 3 are workmen of M/s. Kovalam Ashok Beach Resort of Kovalam, a hotel run by the petitioner Corporation. The wages, dearness allowance and other conditions of employment of the workmen of the petitioner Corporation including the workmen of Kovalam Ashok Beach Resort, were governed by a long term settlement which expired on 30th June 1982. The trade unions representing the workmen including respondents 2 and 3, namely I.T.D.C. General Employees' Union, I.T.D.C. Employees' Union and I.T.D.C. General Employees' Association (representing the workmen of the Kovalam Ashok Beach Resort) submitted a charter of demands seeking revision of wages and also other conditions of service. These trade unions jointly pressed their charter of demands. As a result of the negotiation...
Manual Thomas and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker262
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. Construction of the new Legislative Assembly Complex, conceived as early as 1978, and costing over six hundred lakhs, is now entrusted to a State Public Sector Undertaking, the Kerala State Construction Corporation, in preference to two private firms. Aggrieved, the two firms approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in two separate writ petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed in limine by two learned Judges, holding that there is no legal grievance for redressal under Article 226 in this claim, essentially contractual in nature. These two appeals have been filed against these two decisions.2. Initially, we issued notice to the respondents regarding admission of the writ appeals with a direction to the State to furnish, in particular, information as to whether the Construction Corporation was given the contract pursuant to any policy decision of the Government and if so, relevant materials along with the reasons that persuaded the Governme...
Sasi Vs. Food Inspetor, Palghat Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ454
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Accused who was convicted Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month is the petitioner.2. The allegations made against the petitioner are as follows:- The Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality purchased skimmed milk for the purpose of analysis from the petitioner at 8 a.m. on 28-10-80. The purchase, sampling, etc. were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. One sample was sent to the public analyst for analysis. The public analyst reported that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for skimmed milk and that it contained not less than 41% of added water. Hence the prosecution.3. In order to prove the prosecution case P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exts. PI to P15 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›