Madhya Pradesh Court August 1995 Judgments
Nimar Textiles Ltd. Vs. L.K. Pandey, Dy. Labour Commr. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ224MP; 1996(0)MPLJ757
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner/employer has challenged the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'ID Act') where by a direction was made to the petitioner to make the payment of wages for the month of May to July, 1994 amounting to Rs. 28,52,866.80/- to the employees employed in the factory of the petitioner and for that a revenue recovery Certificate was issued to the Collector to recover the said amount from the petitioner.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are thus:The petitioner is a textile industry, which is engaged in manufacture and sale of Cotton Yarn, wherein, about 800 employees are employed. As like other textile units, the petitioner is also passing through a critical financial phase, hence, could not make the payment of electric bills in the year 1988-89. The petitioner avers that an understanding was arrived at between the petitioner and the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ326
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-union, which represents the workers and is a recognised union by the employer respondent No. 1, raised an industrial dispute relating to 112 workmen working in the Mines of Harad Incline, Kotma (West) and 86 workers working in Govind Colliery of Jamnuna Kotma Area, in Shahdol District of respondent No. 1 for seeking the relief of regularisation of services of the said workers, who were working regularly since long as contract labour through a Contractor. After holding the conciliation proceedings, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Shahdol sent the report of no settlement as the main contest of the respondent No. 1 was that the workers are not employed by respondent No. 1. There is no relationship of employer and employee. The workers are not the workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The appropriate Government after going ...
Tag this Judgment!Prayagdatta and ors. Vs. Mahendrasingh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ529
R.D. Shukla, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.10.1988 of Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 76 of 1987, whereby claimants-appellants' petition for compensation has been dismissed.2. This is not in dispute that motor bus No. MPW 9204 was owned by respondent No. 2 and was being driven by the respondent No. 1, at the time of accident, i.e., 14.7.1987. The respondent No. 1 was in the employment of respondent No. 2. The original respondent No. 3, Surendrasingh, who died during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, was the driver and owner of motor cycle No. MPN 6711. This is also not in dispute that claimant-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of deceased Chandra Shekhar Vyas and Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are his brothers. It is also not in dispute that this Chandra Shekhar Vyas was a political worker and was a Member of Legislative Assembly at the relevant period.3. The claimants-appellants' contention, in bri...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Bhattacharya Vs. State Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ531
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court, Durg dated 23-9-1981 passed in Case No. 127/MPIR/87 (Annexure-C) and the order of the Industrial Court dated 29-9-1984 (Annexure-D), whereby the order dated 26-9-1967 passed by the employer, the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-A) imposing punishment of reduction of pay-scale of the petitioner to minimum of the lower grade of Turner Rs. 135-175/- from the grade of Rs. 156-231/- for a period of five years with effect form the date of service on the charges of misconduct levelled in the charge-sheet dated 12-8-1967 was upheld.2. The petitioner contends that exactly on the same set of facts and the circumstances, the same charges were also levelled against one Narhari Tripathi. A common domestic enquiry was held against both. After conclusion of the common enquiry, the petitioner was inflicted a penalty of reduction to lower grade as ordered in...
Tag this Judgment!Madhya Pradesh Dugdh Mahasangh Maryadit Vs. Gangadhar Sharma and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ138
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. Respondent No. 1 was an employee of the M. P. Dairy Development Corporation, whose services were terminated. Respondent No. 1 challenged the said order before the Labour Court. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with back wages. In between the assets and liabilities of the Dairy Development Corporation were transferred to the petitioner. Against the order passed by the Labour Court of reinstatement and back wages, the petitioner as a transferee/assignee filed an appeal under Section 65 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the Act'). The Industrial Court dismissed the appeal as the petitioner was not a party to the case before the Labour Court. Aggrieved of the order of Industrial Court, the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. An appeal against an order of the Labour Court lies under Section 65 of the Act which reads thus :'65. Appeal - (1) Notwithstanding any...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. State Co-operative Bank Association Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ792
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/employer has challenged the order of the Board of Revenue of dismissing the appeal filed under Section 77(2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act) for absence of the petitioner and also the application for readmission of the appeal dismissed for default.2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are thus :The respondent No. 4 was working as Clerk-cum-Typist in the office of the petitioner since 1968, who tendered his resignation on 12-4-1976 giving three months' notice and making it effective after expiry of three months notice period. The management accepted the resignation vide order dated 12-5-1976, but the respondent employee withdrew the resignation vide application dated 17-5-1976 before it became effective. However, as the resignation was accepted, the management did not allow the employee to join his duties. The respondent/employee raised a dispute under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jugalkishore and Two ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC245
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.3.1987 of III M.A.C.T., Indore passed in Claim Case No. 112/81 whereby the claimant respondent No. 1 has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,02,300/- in all for sustaining injuries in a motor accident on 8.12.80. This appeal has been filed by Insurance Company challenging the factum of negligence and quantum of amount of compensation.2. The brief history of the case is that claimant respondent No. 1 was going on scooter CPE 1662 to Professor's Colony and while proceeding as such happened to pass through Tagore Marg, the truck No. DHL 188, driven by respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 3 came with high speed and gave a dash to the scooter near Orient Mail Speed Office on Snehnagar Road. The claimant sustained injuries on head, left leg, chest, shoulders, both hands and other parts of body. He became unconscious, taken to hospital. He has sustained injuries and therefore, he was kept under plaster....
Tag this Judgment!Patiram JaIn and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: [1997]225ITR409(MP)
A.S. Tripathi, J.1. These two petitions have been presented by the petitioners for quashing the notices and summons issued against them, annexure 'P/10-A' to annexure 'P/10-E'. In the first case, the petitioners have been challenging the prosecution under Section 276DD read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, and, in the second case, the petitioners have been challenging their prosecution under Section 276E read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1987 of 1992 shall be the leading case.3. The petitioners, in both the petitions, claimed that they are carrying on business as partners in the name and style of Prakash Iron Stores at Lohiya Bazar, Gwalior. They have been dealing in wholesale of iron steel goods. They have been maintaining account books. The petitioners are partners in the firm.4. Another sister concern of the same family in the name of Santosh Steel Sales at Lohi...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Palika Sheppurkalan Vs. Badri Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC125
S. Dwivedi, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, which has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.2. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 for the recovery of Rs. 1,400/- and for permanent injunction on the allegations that he was the fourth class employee of the appellant. He was married with one Rampyari and had a son Pooranmal and a daughter Santosh out of the wed-lock. It was further stated by him that he had divorced his wife Rampyari. The two children were living with Rampyari, who was not ready to part with them.3. It was further averred that Rampyari had made an application for the legal aid, for filing the suit against the appellant to respondent No. 2 and had also prayed that she be appointed as guardian of the two minor children of the appellant. It was stated by the appellant in the suit that respondent No. 2 instead of giving any legal aid to this wife,...
Tag this Judgment!Patiram JaIn and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(MP)312
A. S. TRIPATHI, J. :These two petitions have been presented by the petitioners for quashing the notices and summons issued against them, annexure 'P/10-A' to annexure 'P/10-E'. In the first case, the petitioners have been challenging the prosecution under s. 276DD r/w s. 278B of the IT Act, and, in the second case, the petitioners have been challenging their prosecution under s. 276E r/w s. 278B of the IT Act, 1961.2. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1987 of 1992 shall be the leading case.3. The petitioners, in both the petitions, claimed that they are carrying on business as partners in the name and style of Prakash Iron Stores at Lohiya Bazar, Gwalior. They have been dealing in wholesale of iron steel goods. They have been maintaining account books. The petitioners are partners in the firm.Another sister concern of the same family in the name of Santosh Steel Sales at Lohiya Bazar, Gwalior, is also carrying on business as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »