Kerala Court December 2007 Judgments

Kuruppumpady Service C-op. Bank Ltd. No. E. 257 Vs. T.K. David and ors ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ145; 2008(1)KLT633

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Is a decision by an Arbitration Court setting aside an enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings and giving liberty to the parties to prove their case before it appealable under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 19692. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the first respondent - employee was placed under suspension by the first petitioner - society. Following disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed. The dispute between him and the society, on account of that, being one that fell under Section 69(2)(d) of the Act, he moved the Arbitration Court. By Ext.P1, the enquiry report was set aside leaving it to the parties to prove their case. The society filed an appeal under Section 82 of the Act before the Tribunal. The employee disputed the maintainability of that appeal. The society then moved an interlocutory application for conversion of the appeal into a revision, in the event of the appeal being found to be not maintain...

Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy and Management Services Vs. Labour Commi ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)IILLJ420Ker

Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of professional consultancy and man-power and management services. The petitioner submitted draft standing orders for certification under Section 3 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 before the jurisdictional Deputy Labour Commissioner, who has been notified as the certifying officer under the Act. The same was certified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act after conducting necessary enquiry and adjudication. Such certification was on May 28, 1998. The Act itself provides for an appeal either by the management or by the workmen if they are aggrieved by any clause in the Standing Orders as certified. None of the parties involved filed appeal against the Standing Orders of the petitioner firm as certified and the same became final. One-and-a-half years after the certification, by Exhibit P-2 notice, purportedly issued under Section 6 of the Industrial Employment (Stan...

Noorul Islam Education Trust Vs. Assistant Labour Officer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR533]; (2008)2LLJ774Ker

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a Trust, which is running a self-financing Dental College at Aralummoodu in Neyyattinkara Taluk. As part of that college, there is a Dental Hospital also. The question raised in this Writ Petition is regarding the applicability of the provisions of various labour laws to the said hospital.2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The petitioner runs a Dental College, after getting all the requisite sanctions/permissions/affiliation from all the statutory authorities. It is also registered under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality (Registration of Private Hospitals and Private Para-medical Institutions) Rules, 1997, as a private hospital. While so, the Assistant Labour Officer, Neyyattinkara issued Exhibit P-5 inspection note, calling upon the petitioner to produce certain registers to be maintained under various labour laws, before him. The petitioner filed Exhibit P-6 objection, stating that the Government of Kerala have exemp...

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Neyyattinkara Branch, Rep. by Ass ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated.6.10.03 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OPNo.642/2000. The complaint in OP.642/00 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party claiming the insurance claim of Rs.1,50,000/-and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Insurance company. The claim was repudiated by the opposite party and limited the claim at Rs.6571/-. The Insurance Company relied on the investigation report received by them from their private investigator. But the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby the opposite party/Insurance company is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.75000/- as Insurance claim with Rs.10,000/- as general compensation and a cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party therein. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opp...

Moosakoya Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2388

J.B. Koshy, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court referred this matter to the Division Bench as in the earlier judgment of this Court in Alavi P.K. v. District Collector and Ors. ILR 2007 (4) Kerala 221 : 2007 (4) KHC 142 same as Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala 2007 (4) KLT 473 while holding that Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable when vehicles transporting sand illegally is seized under Section 102, Cr.P.C. it was not brought to the notice of this Court that under Section 24 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (in short 'the Sand Act') all offences are cognizable. If the offences are cognizable, the police cannot refuse to register a crime when they get information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. Consequently, police is bound to report the seizure of the vehicle to the Magistrate having jurisdiction as provided under Section 102, Cr.P.C. At paragraph 6 of the judgment it was held as follo...

State Farms Corporation of India Vs. Mathai

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1124]; (2008)IILLJ1016Ker

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The employer, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, in a gratuity claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, is the petitioner herein. They are challenging Exhibits P-1, P-3 and P-4 orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Act, passed in favour of the 1st respondent employee. The legal question raised in this writ petition is as to whether an employer can deduct certain amounts allegedly due from the employee to the employer from the amount of gratuity due to the employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act.2. The petitioner herein is a Government Company. The 1st respondent opted for voluntary retirement under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the Company. The amounts due as per the scheme were paid to him. Later on, when gratuity was paid to him, an amount of Rs. 70,432/- was deducted from the gratuity amount, which according to the petitioner is excess ex gratia amount mistakenly paid under the Voluntary Ret...

Praveenchandran P. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ417; 2008(1)KLT478

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners are accountants in the service of the second respondent Co-operative Bank, the Board of which resolved to request the Government to exempt the petitioners from possessing graduation as an educational qualification. That was rejected by Ext. P7. Hence, this writ petition.2. According to the petitioners, though by Exts. P4 and P5 series documents, exemption has been granted to the Bank from the provisions of Item (u) Clause (b) of Sub-rule 8 of Rule 185 and Sub-rule 1 of Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', the Government adopted a pick and choose policy by limiting the benefit of Exts. P4 and P5 series, to the employee named in those orders. They accordingly contend that Ext. P7 refusing to grant exemption in exercise of authority under Rule 181 is unsustainable. Having regard to the nature of the contentions, the matter was adjourned on 12-11 -2007 for the department to place cou...

Danesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Inspg. Asst. Commissioner (inv. Branch) and ors ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)13VST461(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners were partners of a firm by name Jaya Medicals which was a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. However, according to the petitioners, common petitioner in O.P. Nos. 18423 of 1997 and 29631 of 2002 retired in 1990 and the petitioner in O.P. No. 18391 of 1997 retired in March 1991. Consequent upon the retirement of the other two partners, petitioner in O.P. No. 18411 of 1997 continued as proprietor of the business is the case of petitioners. According to the petitioners, the transaction which led to penalty levied under Section 45A of the KGST Act which is impugned in all the original petitions happened during 1993-94 when the business was run as proprietorship by Mr. Danesh Kumar Gupta. The assessing officer levied penalty for alleged evasion of tax on the firm consisting of all the partners. Though the penalty levied was contested in two levels of revision, it was confirmed though in a modified form by the Commissi...

P.K.Raju Vs. the Asst.Engineer, Kseb Electrical Section, Thaneermukkom ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHANNAIR: MEMBER The complainant in OP.187/01 on the file of the CDRF, Alappuzha has come up in this appeal claiming compensation even though an order was passed by the Forum partly allowing the prayers of the complainant. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties and that he was regularly paying the current charges for the actual consumption made by him. The opposite parties enhanced the tariff of the appellant/complainant wrongly and arbitrarily as alleged by the complainant. The electrical connection was dis-connected by the respondents while the complaint was before the forum and the complainant prayed for reconnection apart from cancellation of additional bills issued to him. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the connection was originally registered in the name of T.K.Karunakaran with a connected load of 140 Watts. Subsequently the ownership was changed to the name of the complai...

The General Secretary, Ymca, Kollam Vs. Rajeevalochanan Divisional Man ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.440/2002 in the file of CDRF, Kollum who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. 2. The appellant is the General Secretary of YMCA, Kollam . In the complaint he had alleged that after receiving 1500/- towards advance of the total amount of Rs.4400/-and allotting room to him the room was reallotted to another person. He was informed over telephone with respect to the allocation on 12.8.02, on which date he deposited Rs.4400. He was told by the staff of the appellant that he may pay balance amount ie an amount of Rs.2900/- when the room is ready for occupation and the key is handed over. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, complainant exts.P1 to P10 and DW1, the office bearer of the appellant. 4. The Forum below believed the version of PW1 the complainant that he was assured by the staff of the appellant that the balance ...