Mumbai Court March 1968 Judgments
Engineering General Kamgar Union Vs. Best Cotton Company and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ186Bom
Per Nain, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the quashing of an award dated 17 March, 1967, made by the industrial tribunal, Bombay, in Reference (I.T.) Nos. 212 of 1965 and 44 of 1966. The petitioner is a trade union representing majority of the workmen employed by respondent 1, and respondent 2 is the tribunal. 2. Respondent 1 company had during the material time in its employment about sixty workmen. On 1 September, 1964, the petitioner sent a charter of demands to respondent 1 pertaining to gratuity, casual leave, sick leave, uniforms, stop-day allowance, lunch allowance, acting allowance, etc. As conciliation in respect of these demands failed, a report was made to the Government which made a reference on 23 June 1965. By another charter of demands on 8 April 1965, a demand for bonus for the financial year 1964-65 ending on 31 March 1965 was made. A separate reference dated 10 February 1965, was made in respect of this demand. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Chipping and Painting Employers, Association Private Limited Vs. A.T. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom274; (1968)70BOMLR506; [1968(17)FLR324]; ILR1969Bom783
Nain, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9th November 1967 passed by the Presiding officer, central Government Labor Court, Bombay, ordering the p petitioners to reinstate the respondent No.2, who was a workman employed by them.2. The Petitioners are an Association Limited by guarantee. Contractors who take contracts for chipping and painting in the Docks are members of the petitioners' Association.3. Pursuant to the provisions of the Dock labour (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, the Central Government published the Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulation of jEmployment) Scheme, 1957, providing for listing by the Bombay Dock Labour , inter alia, of work,men doing the work of chipping and painting in the port. The 2nd respondent was a listed worker under the said Scheme, and as such he was issued an identity card by the Bombay Dock Labour Board , entitling him to enter the port area and to do the work that may be all...
Tag this Judgment!Chipping and Painting Employees' Association Ltd. Vs. Zambre (A.T.) an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ193Bom
Per Nain, J.1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9 November 1967, passed by the presiding officer, Central Government Labour Court, Bombay, ordering the petitioners to reinstate respondent 2, who was a workman employed by them. 2. The petitioners are an association limited by guarantee. Contractors who take contracts for chipping and painting in the docks are members of the petitioners' association. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of the Dock Labour (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, the Central Government published the Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1958, providing for listing by the Bombay Dock Labour Board, inter alia, of workmen doing the work of chipping and painting in the port. Respondent 2 was a listed worker under the said scheme, and as such, he was issued an identity card by the Bombay Dock Labour Board entitling him to enter the port area and to do the work that may be allocated to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shinde (A.G.) and ors. Vs. Bombay Telephones (by Manager) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ74Bom
Patel, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order made by the Payment of Wages Authority dismissing their applications for overtime wages. The short facts are that the petitioners are employed with the workshops of the Telephones in Bombay, which in theory means that they are the employees of the Central Government, working with the Telephones Department. Their duties consist of inspection of identity cards, the search of workers, while entering in the various departments and coming cut from the departments, inspecting or checking materials taken from one building to another of the same factory, preventing workmen from entering or leaving factory other than at the appointed time or without authority, keeping a watch on the workmen and material within the factory compound, but outside the building when the workmen of painting or packing are at work. Similarly, they also had other incidental duties not directly connected with the manufacturing process. Their alle...
Tag this Judgment!National Engineering Employees' Union Vs. Kulkarni (R.N.) and Anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ82Bom
Per Patel, J.1. One Sample was in the employment of respondent 2 company which is a private limited company. On 28 February, 1961, the management made an order in the first instance terminating his services on and from that date as the charge-hand, but having regard to his prior career, gave him an option of serving as a mechanic in the garage department at the same salary that he was getting on that date. The option had to be exercised by Sample by 9 March, 1961. The union took this matter up and raised a dispute and eventually on 24 April, 1962, the State Government referred the matter to the labour court. It appears that during the course of evidence, the learned labour judge made an order on 6 April, 1965, directing the company and the union to submit their arguments on a preliminary point raised by the learned judge. This point was raised by the learned labour judge because of some correspondence which was produced before him which appeared to him to suggest that the worker had ex...
Tag this Judgment!Badrinarayan Ramsukh Rathi Vs. Nichaldas Tejbhandas Sindhi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom119; (1968)70BOMLR481; ILR1969Bom38
ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of two houses bearing No.1163 and No. 667 situated at Rawiwar peth, Poona. Respondent No. 1 is Special Civil Application No. 2203 of 1965 and Respondent No.1. in Special Civil Application No. 116 of 1966 are the tenants is house No. 1163. There was one more tenant is house No. 667. The petitioner wanted to demolish the original construction on these two houses and have a fresh one building constructed thereon, in place of the two separate houses. He therefore devised a plan of one full-fledged building and then got the said plan duly sanctioned from the Municipality on or about 30th May 1961. He then approached the Tribunal constituted under Section 13(3B) of the Bombay Rent Act and obtained a certificate from them as required under the said sub-section (3B) of Section 13. He then gave a notice to the three tenants, i.e., two tenants of house No. 1163 and also the tenant of house No.667, terminating their tenancy alleging that he reasonably and bonaf...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1968
Reported in: [1968(17)FLR266]; (1968)IILLJ750Bom
Nain, J.1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the Union of India as representing the Central Railway Administration for write of certiorari and prohibition, praying for quashing of two orders made by respondent 1, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for Neral area. The said authority is also the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Karjat in Kolaba district. Respondents 2 to 201 are alleged to have been employed with the Central Railway Administration during the period from 1 April, 1952 to 31 December, 1963, on construction and maintenance of railway tracks. 2. The facts leading to the petition briefly stated are that respondents 2 and 201 filed against the petitioners on 24 January, 1964, an application before respondent 1, being Application No. 1 of 1964, for recovery of wages alleged to be due to the said respondents being the difference between the minimum wage fixed by the Central Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 11 of...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Owning and Representating the Central Railway Administr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom310; (1968)70BOMLR548; 1968MhLJ771
Nain, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the Union of India as representing the Central Railway Administration for writs of certiorari and prohibition, praying for quashing of two orders made by the Respondent No. 1 the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for Neral area. The said authority is also the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Karjat in Kolaba District. The respondents Nos. 2 to 201 are alleged to have been employed with the Central Railway Administration during the period from 1st April 1952 to 31st December 1963 on construction and maintenance of railway tracks.2. The facts leading to this petition briefly stated are that the respondents Nos. 2 to 201 filed against the petitioners on 24th January 1964 an application before the respondent No. 1, being Application No. 1 of 1964, for recovery of wages alleged to be due to the said respondents being the difference between the minimum wages fixed by the Central Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Govind Take and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom20; (1968)70BOMLR399; 1969CriLJ112; ILR1969Bom552
ORDER1. This is a revision application filed by original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, from the order of the Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar in appeal upholding the conviction of the said accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur, on 13th July 1967. The original 2nd accused was acquitted by the said Judicial Magistrate, On appeal to the Court of Session, the Sessions Judge, whilst up-holding the conviction of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, reduced the sentences of imprisonment Passed against them to the period already undergone by them, maintaining the fine which was imposed by the trial Magistrate. It may, however, be mentioned that, on appeal, the Sessions Judge altered the conviction of accused No. l to Section 324 read with Section 109, 1. P. C. from Section 324 read with Section 34, under which the trial Magistrate had found him guilty. As far as accused Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, he, however, upheld their conviction under Section 324, 1. P. C.2. The facts of the case are tha...
Tag this Judgment!Purohit and Purohit Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ185Bom
Per Patel, J.1. This application arises out of an award made by the industrial tribunal in a dispute referred by the Government to it between the petitioner-firm and their workmen. Those workmen are represented by respondent 1, the trade union. In all there are 26 workers in this firm. The workers made several demands numbering fourteen mentioned in Para. 3 of the award. These demands were adjudicated upon by the tribunal. Five of these demands which are very important are regarding the pay-scales, refixation of pay-scales, dearness allowance, provident fund and gratuity. The rest of the demands also involved monetary burden on the business. Out of the fourteen demands, the tribunal modified the scales of wages covered by demands 2 to 5, namely, the wage-structure of the workmen in the company. Demand 11 was practically adjusted by agreement and demands 12 and 14 were not pressed before him. The other demands were demands 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13, some of which he granted. The petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »