Kerala Court October 1988 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.
Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. Kamalam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR427]; (1995)IIILLJ2Ker
Sreedharan Nair, J.1. The Railway Administration is challenging Ext. P.-7 order passed by the third respondent, Labour Court, Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction in going into the question as to whether respondents 1 and 2 who were petitioners before it had the right to the relief claimed and whether the Railway Administration was liable to pay the amounts claimed against them. By Ext. P.-7, it is argued that the Labour Court adjudicated on the above stated questions and thereafter directed the railways to pay the amounts mentioned therein to respondents 1 and 2. This was beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and hence liable to be quashed.2. Though notice was served on the respondents, none entered appearance to contest the claim.3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the original of Ext. P.-3 application before the third respondent Under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their contention was that they were working ...
S.T. Reddiar and Sons Vs. Regional Director
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ289Ker
1. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Employees In-surance Court was right in holding that ex gratia payments which the appellant-employer made to some of the employees on 31st December 1975 and 29th July 1976 for prompt completion of a specific item of work assigned to them were 'wages' as defined in Section 2(22) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act.)2. The short facts which are relevant are the following: The employer was conducting a printing press. It is a covered establishment and has been paying contributions in respect of the wages paid to its employees. It had entered into a contract with the Government for printing text books. That work was assigned to some temporary employees. They completed the work ahead of schedule in 1975 and again in 1976. On consolidated vouchers Exts. A1 and A2 dated 31st December 1975 and 29th July 1976 respectively, the employer paid Rs. 24,137.17 and Rs. 8,751.55 to the concerned empl...
Ravindran Vs. Cannanore Co.Op. S.M. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR729]; (1995)IIILLJ777Ker
Sukumaran, J.1. The petitioner-workman had a grievance about his dismissal from service, which had been imposed by the management, according to him, unjustifiably. He had invoked the right, of appeal provided under Standing Orders. There is a complaint that despite Exts. P3, P6, P7 and P8 followed by Exts. PI2 and P13, the appeal has not been disposed of. Ordinarily, there would have been substance in that complaint. However, the pendency of I.D. 14/85 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode has introduced some procedural aspects. The industrial dispute was pending before the Tribunal in relation to the norms for promotion and other matters referred to in the order of reference. In view of the pendency of the dispute, Ext.P2 application had been filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act for approval of the order of dismissal of the petitioner. It was later realised by the management that in that petition, the workman, whose dismissal was sought to be got approved of by the Tribunal, wa...
Aniyan and ors. Vs. Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas328(Ker)
1. The judgment-debtors are the revision petitioners.2. The respondent-bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,593 to the first petitioner under the I. R. D. P. Scheme. The first petitioner availed of the same on March 9, 1984. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the sureties.3. The first petitioner failed to repay the loan amount. This resulted in the respondent-bank getting revenue recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioners under the loan transaction ; and in connection with that, the authority concerned got the demand notice, No. C1-2092 of 1987, demanding a sum of Rs. 4,288.76, served on the first petitioner. In response to the demand notice, the first petitioner, on April 28, 1987, paid Rs. 1,000 and the entire balance amount due, namely, Rs. 3,385.40, was paid on May 13, 1987, and obtained receipts for the payments. The liability under the loan transaction thus got discharged.4. The bank thereafter instituted a suit, O. S. No. 62 of 1987, for recovery of...
Karuvelil Anna Vs. Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Kuttiadi Augmentation Sch ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker268
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Land belonging to the petitioner was acquired for a public purpose under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act 1961 (21 of 1962), (the Act). Notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner on Oct. 5, 1983. The petitioner had a right to apply for reference for enhanced compensation under Section 20 within six weeks thereof, i.e. on or, before Nov. 16, 1983. But she applied for the reference only on Nov. 28, 1983, which was beyond time. It was rejected as such by the first respondent Land Acquisition Officer (Collector under the Act) on April 23, 1984.2. The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus to the first respondent directing him to refer to Court under Section 20 of the Act, the question of the compensation payable for the land acquired. She submits that she was suffering from enteric fever and was bedridden from Oct. 30, 1983 to Nov. 28, 1983. The factum of her illness is borne out by the medical certificate Ext. P3 pr...
Madhavi Vs. Thilakan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ499
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Petitioner herein, moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Cochin for initiating proceedings under Section 133 of the Code, for removal of nuisance. Respondents 1 & 2 are said to be running a workshop adjacent to petitioner's house, in a manner injurious to health and physical comfort of the community.2. It is alleged that, repairs of autorikshaws, welding, painting and like operations are carried on from dawn to dusk, and late into night, causing nuisance. According to petitioner, this causes not only air pollution, but also noise pollution. It is alleged that, fumes emanating from the workshop are positive health hazards.3. Learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to a report made by the Sub-Inspector dated 15-2-1985 to the effect that respondents 1 & 2 have committed the acts of complained of. But he says that, they should not be stopped from doing these because, that would deprive them of their livelihood.4. Without going into the merits, th...
Athur Gopalan Nambiar, Secretary, Ayancheri Service Co-operative Bank ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-02-1988
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas440(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The points arising for consideration in these revision petitions are identical and, therefore, these three petitions are jointly heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. In execution of the award obtained by the petitioner-bank, the properties in dispute were sold in public auction. The petitioner-bank purchased them with the permission of the sale officer. The sale officer issued the sale certificate. Failure on the part of the judgment-debtors to surrender possession of the properties resulted in the petitioner-bank filing execution applications from which these revisions arise, before the Munsiff of Payyoli, under Order XXI, Rule 35 or 95, Civil Procedure Code. 3. The execution court, after considering the various aspects of the case, has dismissed these applications by the common order under challenge. 4. That the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules do not contain provisions authorising the sale officer to put the decree-holder-purchaser in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›