Kerala Court June 1988 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Khadeeja Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ438Ker
Paripoornan, J.1. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 (State of Kerala and Divisional Forest Officer, Thenmalai) in W.C.C. 1/1987, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Quilon (in short the Commissioner) are the appellants herein. The sole respondent in this appeal was the applicant in W.C.C. 1/1987. The applicant's husband Abdul Khadir was a mahout. He was a Government employee. On 18th July, 1985 he was attacked and injured by an elephant. He died on 20th July, 1985 as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the course of and arising out of his employment. The applicant stated that Abdul Khadir was aged 42 at the time of his death, and that he was drawing a monthly wages of Rs. 900/-, She claimed a compensation of Rs. 60,394/- from the opposite parties. The opposite parties admitted that Abdul Khadir (appellant's husband) was employed as a mahout in the Forest Department and that he died on 20th July, 1985 due to the attack of an elephant. However, it was argued that the deceased was ...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Vyapari V. Y. Wing Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1988
Reported in: (1988)IILLJ550Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. By consent of parties the Original Petition itself is taken up for hearing. The petitioner claims to be the youth wing of the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Samithy, a State organisation of merchants in Kerala. The merchants in Pathanamthitta District are affected by a circular Ext. P-2 dated 1st May 1988 issued by two unions, namely respondents 4 and 5 by which they have intimated the merchants and owners of vehicles that the collection of 'bonus' will commence from 15th May 1988. The amount of bonus payable is mentioned as Rs. 60 per lorry, Rs. 50/- per DCM Van, Rs. 40/- per Tempo Van and Rs. 25/- for sales van.2. Goods from various parts of Tamil Nadu and other parts of Kerala are brought to Pathanamthitta District by vans and lorries. The charges of loading and unloading of goods in such vehicles are being paid by the merchants to the workers concerned at the rates prescribed in Ext. P-1 which is an agreement entered into between the merchants and the workers' union...
Tag this Judgment!Karunakaran Nair Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1988
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ1Ker
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The question which arises in this case is whether the petitioner is right in contending that the subsistence allowance claimed by him under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 is a matter which is within the purview of the Labour Court to decide under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held by the impugned order that it had no such power by reason of Section 4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act.2. Section 4 of the Subsistence Allowance Act, in so far as it is material, reads :'Recovery of money due from an employer. Where any money is due to an employee from an employer under this Act, the employee himself or any other person authorised by him in this behalf or in the case of the death of the employee, his legal representative may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the Government in such manner as may be prescribed for the recovery of money due to him, and if the Gove...
Tag this Judgment!M. C. Mathew Vs. Edathwa Panchayat and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1988
Reported in: [1988]174ITR455(Ker)
T. KOCHU THOMMEN J. - The petitioner is the secretary of an association stated to represent the taxpayers of the Edathwa Panchayat. The complaint of the petitioner is that exhibit P - 1. which is a demand notice issued under section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, by the first respondent. is invalid for the reason that there was no levy of profession tax in terms of section 69 of the Act. The procedure prescribed in rule 10 of the Kerala Profession Tax Rules, 1963, and other relevant rules had not been followed before issuing exhibit P - 1. No notice had been issued to the assessee.Counsel for the first respondent admits that exhibit P -1, which is a demand notice under section 74, was not preceded by a notice under rule 10. Notice had been issued to the employer of the assessee under rule 15, but no notice was given to the assessee. Counsel further submits that, in any view, the petitioner has no locus standi to agitate the questions raised in this original petition on behalf o...
Tag this Judgment!Grace Sheela Joseph Vs. P.K. George Vaidian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker234
Paripoornan, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 35 of 1981, District Court, Trichur, under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) and Order 41, Rule 1, C.P.C. The petitioner filed the application for divorce of her marriage with the respondent under Section 27 of the Act. The respondent married the petitioner on 29-6-1981 at Marthoma Church, Kunnam-kulam, according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and customs of the church. Stating that the respondent has committed cruelty and it is impossible for the petitioner to continue the marital relationship, the petitioner filed the petition for divorce of the marriage under Section 27 of the Act. Amongst other pleas, the respondent contended that the petition is not maintainable. The Court below held that since there is no case that the marriage was registered under the Act, thepetition filed by the appellant (petitioner) for divorce of her marriage with the respondent under Section 27 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Kuriakose Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ1Ker
Paripoornan, J. 1. Is an 'advertising concern' a shop? That is the sole question that arises for consideration herein.The applicant in Insurance Case No. 60/1986, Employees' Insurance Court, Alleppey is the appellant in this appeal. The Opposite Party-Regional Director, ESI. Corporation, Trichur, is the respondent herein. The applicant filed an application praying for a declaration that the applicant-company Will not come under the purview of the E.S.I. Act. The company is doing the work of advertising consultancy at various places in Kerala. It put forward the plea that there was no minimum strength in the establishment requiring coverage under the E.S.I. Scheme. It cannot be termed a 'shop'. The respondent herein (Opposite Party) relied on the notification, issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, extending the provisions of the Act to 'shops and sought to cover the appellant-company under the E.S.I. Act. The notification No. 22877/E2/73/LBR dated 18th Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC196(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These are connected cases. The Revenue is the petitioner in both these revisions. The matter relates to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The respondent/assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of G.I. stay-wires. They were sought to be taxed under entry 26 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In appeals, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax as also the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the turnover of sales of stay-wires cannot be brought to tax under entry 26 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as it stood during the relevant assessment year, in view of the decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Anand Wire & Allied Industries [1979] 43 STC 273. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Tribunal dated 7th October, 1987 in T.A. Nos. 497 and 498 of 1979, the Revenue has come up in revisions.2. We heard counsel for the Revenue. It is agreed that the sales ...
Tag this Judgment!Employees Provident Fund Inspector Vs. the Poly Clinic (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1988
Reported in: II(1988)ACC559; (1989)IILLJ562Ker
Padmanabhan, J.1. The Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short 'the Act') is a beneficent piece of social welfare legislation intended for the social security of the employees. The Act and Scheme are aimed at being extended to as much employees as possible. That is why Section 1(3)(b) authorised the Central Government to extend the provisions by notification in the Gazette to establishments, the only condition being that the concern should be an establishment and it should employ 20 or more persons. Size of the concern reflected by the number of employees and not the nature of the business transacted there is the criterion. The right to issue notifications bringing more and more establishments within its ambit is there and it will continue so long as the Act is in force. In exercise of the powers, the Central Government issued several notifications of which we are concerned only with two. They are the notification of 1964 by which establishment of 'Medical ...
Tag this Judgment!Samson Jayasingh Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ626Ker
Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The petitioner was an employee of the first respondent. He was appointed on probation by letter dated 22-1-1975. That letter says that the petitioner was to be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining service. It further says:'If your work and conduct during this period are found to be unsatisfactory in any way, your services will be terminated without notice, or assigning any reason for the same'.Subsequently by letter dated 31-1-1976 the petitioner was told by the management:'I regret that you have been found unsuitable for the post of an Assistant Conductor and as per the second paragraph of the above mentioned letter, your services are being terminated with immediate effect.2. As a result of the action of the management terminating the services of the petitioner, an industrial dispute arose and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Quilon, which by the award in I.D. No. 56 of 1978 found that the termination of the services of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Balan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1988
Reported in: [1990]79STC235(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner is now a salaried employee. In respect of certain business which he had conducted prior to his becoming an employee under the third respondent, sales tax became due from him under exhibit P2, assessment order for the year 1980-81. This was confirmed in appeal by exhibit P3. It is stated by the petitioner's counsel that a second appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Tribunal. In the meantime an order is stated to have been issued by the second respondent under Section 25 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, directing the petitioner's employer, the third respondent, 'to recover and pay to the Sales Tax Officer, Chalakudy, a sum of Rs. 17,475 from any money due or which may become due' to the employee from the employer (See exhibit P4, letter of the third respondent to the petitioner). The third respondent accordingly intimated the petitioner that arrangements have been made with the pay section of their office in accordance with the direction ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »