Kolkata Court May 1998 Judgments

Steel Authority of India and ors. Vs. Sheo Nayak Murar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)3CALLT188(HC)

P.S. Mishra, J. 1. The case history for judicial surgery of the issues involved in the appeal and the petition aforementioned to the extent relevant is as follows:The appellant and petitioner Steel Authority of india, for brevity called SAIL, engaged contractors for work at its stock yards within the jurisdiction of this Court who, in their turn, engaged labourers. Initial controversy as to who the competent authority was urged before the apex court in Writ Petition No. 1439 of 1987 which was disposed of follows:'We have heard the learned counsel for the parties we find that this is eminently a fit case in which a direction should be issued to the State of West Bengal which is the appropriate Government under the Contract Labour (Registration and Abolition) Act, 1970 to consider the justice whether the contract labour should be prohibited in the stockyards namely- (i) Paharpur Home Sales Stockyards (ii) Paharpur Transport & Shipping Stockyards (iii) Durgapur I Siding Stockyards (iv) Du...

Gopal Krishna Sahoo Vs. Calcutta Port Trust and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1999(81)FLR242],(2001)IIILLJ159Cal

Ajay Nath Ray, J.1. The writ petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and at the first stage was punished by dismissal. The departmental appeal which was preferred was partially successful. The writ-petitioner was reinstated in service but his pay was put at the lowest level of the pay for a draftsman. The charge against the writ-petitioner was that on December 4, 1993 he had physically assaulted and seriously injured one Hore, another draftsman of superior rank. A preliminary enquiry was held by one Moitra on December 4, 1993. Several witnesses were examined at that preliminary stage. The show cause prepared and served in January, 1994; that was duly answered by the writ-petitioner. The charge was denied. Thereafter the enquiry itself was held by one M.N. Ghosh. At the enquiry Hore gave evidence, Moitra gave evidence and several others who had given evidence at the preliminary stage again appeared before the enquiring officer and gave their evidence again. The enquiry report wa...

Ram Darash Dosad @ R.D. Dosad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. The applicant in this original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was working as a semi-skilled worker in the Eastern Railway. On 17.8.80 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding which was eventually initiated by serving on him a charge-memo dt. 28.8.80 alleging gross misconduct inasmuch as he had physically obstructed certain co-workers from attending to de-lux rake and also snatched away railway tools from them forcibly, threatening them with dire consequence. An enquiry officer was appointed who after holding the enquiry submitted a report concluding that the charge against the applicant had been established. The disciplinary authority having accepted the finding of the enquiry officer, imposed on the applicant the penalty of removal from service by the impugned order dated 7/10.12.81. This order was passed by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Sr.Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C and W), Eastern Railway thoug...