Madhya Pradesh Court November 1966 Judgments
Laxman Tulsiram Vs. Dayalal Meghji and Co. Badashahi Bidi Works Throug ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP155; [1967(15)FLR454]; (1968)ILLJ139MP
Dixit, C.J. 1. The petitioner's application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for recovery from the employer, namely, the respondent No. 1, M/s Dayalal Meghji and Co., of the difference in wages actually paid to him for the period from 3rd September 1960 to 22nd June 1961 and the wages payable to him under the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, has been rejected by the Labour Court, Raipur, on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing this determination of the Labour Court.2. Section 33C of the Act of 1947 is as follows-'33-C (1). Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kishanchand Govindram Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC465(MP)
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. By this application, the petitioner seeks a direction that the Sales Tax Tribunal be directed to refer certain questions of law for the decision of this Court.2. The assessment in question is for the period 1st January, 1953 to 27th November, 1957, under Section 18(6) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. On 20th November, 1957, the petitioner, Shri Kishanchand s./o. Jeewatram, applied for registration of the business known as 'Kishanchand Govindram' showing himself as the proprietor. In column 2 of the application for registration, Shri Kishanchand included the name of his brother Govindram as the person having interest in the business; but the words in column 2, namely, ' names and addresses of partners' were scored out. The business for which the certificate was applied was cloth business. When this application was presented, it appears that an enquiry was instituted. I...
Tag this Judgment!Madhya Pradesh Bank Employees Association and anr. Vs. State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1966
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ556MP
Bhave, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of the bank employees and the petitioner No. 2 is a member thereof. Many employees of the cooperative banks in the state are members of the said association. Under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Registrar has been empowered to frame rules governing the terms of employment and working conditions in a co-operative society or classes of societies. In exercise of the said powers the Registrar framed rules styled as the ' Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Central Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules.' Rule 32 thereof reads as under :' 32. No employee of the bank shall be a member, representative or officer of any association representing or purporting to represent non-official co-operative employees unless such association satisfies the following conditions : (a) the association should be recognised by the Registrar. (b) membership of the association shall be confined only to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ardeshar Sorabji and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP13
Krishnan, J. 1. The appellants in all these three appeals are contractors who had done work in the Madhya Pradesh side of what is popularly known as the 'Gandhi Sagar Scheme'. They had in course of their contract been given part payments on assessment of work done, but when the final settlement was to be made on different dates in each of the contracts there cropped up certain differences as to the sums ultimately payable. The work by its very nature is slow and there being always some scope for difference of opinion such differences are by no means unusual and have been provided for in all these written agreements by an arbitration clause which is a standard one, and in this case follows the wording in vogue in the Central P. W. D. and numbered Clause 25 in the written Instruments. The essence of it is that all such disputes are to be referred to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer in charge of the scheme for the time being. This officer would be in any case a servant of th...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishan Narayandas, a Firm Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commission ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP157; (1967)IILLJ649MP
Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 496 of 1964, 134 and 387 of 1965 and 30, 31, 64 and 387 of 1966.2. The petitioners in these eight cases are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Bidis. By these applications they challenge the applicability of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, (hereinafter called the Act), and the Employees Provident Funds Scheme. 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme), to their establishments. They pray that the notices issued to them by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter called the Commissioner), requiring them to remit the Provident Fund contributions and administrative charges and to submit the statements required of them under the Act and the Scheme within the periods specified in the notices, be quashed by the issue of writs of certiorari and the Commissioner be restrained from enforcing the provisions of the Act against them.The Commissioner has also dete...
Tag this Judgment!Raipur Transport Co. Private Ltd. Vs. M.P. Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968MP36
Bhave, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing six notices of demand issued by the respondent No. 1, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, to the petitioner-company for payment of the amount of passenger-tax said to be due from the applicant under the Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner also prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings initiated against it for recovery of the tax amount.2. The petitioner-Company carries on the business of motor transport and plies stage carriages under a number of permits. Under the Act, an operator is required to submit monthly returns and deposit the passenger tax every month. For the months, February 1961 to July 1961, it appears that the petitioner filed the returns but did not deposit the passenger tax alleged to have been collected by it. The tax was not deposited because the peti...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Gidroniya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP231; (1968)ILLJ664MP
Dixit, C.J. 1. The petitioner in this case prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated the 7th May, 1964, of the State Government suspending him pending an enquiry on certain charges against him and for quashing a notice issued to him on 1st August, 1964, asking him to file his reply to the charges which are the subject-matter of the enquiry. He also prays that a direction be issued to the opponents prohibiting them from proceeding with the departmental enquiry against him.2. The petitioner is a probationary Naib Tahsildar While he was posted in 1961 at Bilaigarh, the Commissioner, Raipur Division, passed an order for the holding of an enquiry against him on as many as thirteen charges, and also made an order on 3rd August, 1961, suspending him pending the departmental enquiry. Later on, it came to the notice of the Government that the Commissioner. Raipur Division, was not competent to order a departmental enquiry against the petitioner with a view to impos...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›