Kerala Court April 1993 Judgments
Malappuram Dt. Headload Workers' Federation Vs. P. Kunju Mohammed and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-27-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ420Ker
Jagannndha Rao, C.J.1. This is yet another case where workmen claiming to be registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978, go on obstructing industrialists and other persons who run their own shops or industries by claiming that such industrialists or other owners should not have the choice of engaging their own workmen. We are clearly of the view that if any industrialist or an employer wants to employ his own workmen for the purpose of running his industry or for the purpose of his shop or other organisation, he has a right to engage workers of his choice and this right falls clearly under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978, is, in no way, intended lo interfere with the said right. If, however, the employer or the person who starts industry is unable to secure workmen of his choice, then, it is open to him to take the services of the headload workers registered under the Headload Workers Act, 1978. However, if the employer or o...
Tag this Judgment!George C. Kappen and ors. Vs. Govt. of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Ker365
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The eleven petitioners were members of the Municipal Council of Palai of which the total membership is twenty. They were elected for a five year term expiring on 31st January 1993. But it was extended by a notification Ext. P. 1 dated 28th January 1993 for a further period of six months with effect from 1st February 1993. It was a general notification issued under the proviso to Section 8(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act 1960 (14 of 1961) extending the term of office of the elected Councillors of all the municipalities in the State for a further period of six months from 1st February 1993. Similar notification was issued in relation to Councillors of Municipal Corporations as well as seen from Ext. P. 1.2. Section 8 of the Act deals with the term of Councillors, and the filling up of seats. Sub-section (1) which is relevant provides that the term of office of Councillors shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be five years commencing from such d...
Tag this Judgment!Tity Thomas and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR1072(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The petitioners, eight in number, were partners of a firm, Messrs. Gemini Plantations, which owns coffee plantations in this State. This partnership, constituted over a decade and a half ago, has been undergoing reconstructions from time to time, with partners retiring and new partners being inducted. The specific details of these retirements and inductions are unnecessary for the purpose of this case, except to mention that the petitioners were partners of the firm during the financial years ending March 31, 1981, and March 31, 1982.2. The firm had been granted registration under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Assessments, exhibits P-4 and P-5, were completed on March 13, 1986, holding that the firm had no income assessable to tax under the Act. These orders were, however, reopened and fresh orders, exhibits P-8 and P-9, passed on August 14, 1987, assessing the firm to tax on the capital gains arising consequent on the sale of certain t...
Tag this Judgment!Vanajakshy A.S. Vs. Fact Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ334Ker
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner joined FEDO, a unit of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancorc Ltd. (for short 'the FACT'), as a temporary typist/clerk for a period of one year with effect from 3rd October, 1983, The FACT is a company registered under the Companies Act and major percentage of the shares of this company are owned by the Union Government and the Slate Government. This company is an 'authority' coming within the definition of 'Stale' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner continued as typist initially for a period of one year and after the expiry of that term she was again appointed for another one year with effect from 4th October, 1984. The term of the second appointment expired on 3rd October, 1985. Then she was again appointed for a period from 4th October, 1985, to 31st March, 1986. Then by Exhibit P-4 order, her appointment was extended for a period of another three months. Thus by various extension orders, the petitioner could continue as a ty...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR19(Ker)
T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to get the benefit under Section 80J(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment years concerned are 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76.3. The assessee is the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, which is a wholly owned undertaking of the Government of Kerala, formed in the year 1970 for the purpose of taking over and running sick cashew factories. The assessee took over five factories in the year 1970-71, and 22 factories in the year 1971-72, of which two were purchased outright and the rest taken on lease from the owners for periods ranging from two to five years. The balance-sheet of the assessee showed as its...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Neelakantan Nair Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ247Ker
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the action of the Administrator (second respondent) in settling a dispute pending before the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (first respondent) causing financial burden on the Marakkara Service Cooperative Bank. Petitioner is a member of the Bank and was its President for a period of three years which ended on September 30, 1992.2. Third respondent was dismissed on charge of gross insubordination, dereliction of duties and misappropriation of funds after conducting domestic enquiry. Challenging the dismissal third respondent filed appeal before the first respondent. While the appeal was pending, respondents 2 and 3 filed a statement before the first respondent and settled the dispute. As per the settlement, third respondent was allowed to rejoin duty on January 4, 1993 with continuity of service and 50 per cent of backwages from June 29, 1992 to January 4, 1993. The period of suspension of t...
Tag this Judgment!Victory Mills Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ65Ker
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner, the managing partner of Messrs. Victory Mills, Kannur, which was closed on January 13, 1987, challenges ExhibitP-5, award of the first respondent. In the claim petition (C.P. No. 9 of 1991) between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 37 (applicants), the first respondent held that the applicants are entitled to get closure compensation as claimed by them. 2. Claim of the applicants for gratuity was settled and it was agreed that the sale proceeds of the machinery of the factory would be deposited in the joint account of the two labour unions and the petitioner. The amount was accordingly deposited. It is thereafter that Claim Petition No. 9 of 1991 was filed before the first respondent for notice pay and closure compensation. 3. Petitioner contends that the application has been filed long after the aforesaid settlements and that Exhibit P-l pass book would show that the amount was deposited as agreed by the parties. It is contended that the cla...
Tag this Judgment!Mariamma Vs. Hindustan Latex Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ488Ker
Balakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as a Lady Security Guard in the respondent Company and she joined on March 3, 1984. Petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste. The majority of the Guards working in the company are Ex-service men. Petitioner's brother was in Military Service and he died on May 29, 1964 while in service. Thereafter, the petitioner sent various applications to get employment. At last the petitioner's application was recommended by the Rajya Sainik Board and on that basis the petitioner was appointed by the respondent. Petitioner has passed S.S.L.C. and later also obtained National Physical Efficiency Test Certificate. She was promoted to the post of Head Guard on August 23, 1991 and this promotion was on the basis of seniority. The next promotion to the post available to the petitioner is that of Assistant Security Inspector (ASI). There are 4 Assistant Security Inspectors working in the company and, out of these, one C. Thankappan Chettiar retired from ser...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Ker)266; [1993]205ITR19(Ker)
T. L. VISWANATHA IYER J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to get the benefit under section 80J(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessment years concerned are 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76.The assessee is the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, which is a wholly owned undertaking of the government of Kerala, formed in the year 1970 for the purpose of taking over and running sick cashew factories. The assessee took over five factories in the year 1970-71, and 22 factories in the year 1971-72, of which two were purchased outright and the rest taken on lease from the owners for periods ranging from two to five years. The balance-sheet of the assessee showed as its assets...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›