Mumbai Court March 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shivaji Gulabrao Bhoite Vs. B.N. Biscuit Confectionery Works and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ73Bom
Patel, J. 1. The petitioner in this case made an application to respondent 2, which is the first labour court, for recovery of overtime allowance from respondent 1 factory. The labour court, relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kays Construction Company (Private); Ltd. : (1962)IILLJ8All , held that overtime wages did not differ from earned wages and, therefore, the labour court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Obviously, this decision is untenable in view of the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 389 of 1967 rendered on 7 January, 1968 and the decision of the Supreme Court in East India Coal Company, Ltd. v. Rameshwar and others : (1968)ILLJ6SC . On this question, Sri John for respondent 1, has absolutely no answer. 2. He, however, tried to contend that there is no merit in the application and the applicant was absent. The only thing that can be said on this point is that the labour...
Ramdeo Pheru Rajbhur and anr. Vs. B.N. Biscuit Confectionery Works and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ72Bom
Patel, J. 1. Petitioner 1 is an employee of respondent 1 and petitioner 2 is the union, which is entitled to represent the workers of respondent 1. For the two years prior to the end of October 1964 respondent 1 was paying bonus equivalent to five months' wages of the workers. For the year under reference 4 November, 1963 to 3 November, 1964 the workmen claimed six months' wages as bonus which respondent 1 refused to pay. As there could be no conciliation of the matter, the dispute was referred by the State Government to the industrial tribunal. During the pendency of this dispute before the tribunal, the Payment of Bonus Ordinance, 1965 (3 of 1965) came into force on 29 May, 1965. It was later substituted by the Bonus Act, 1965 (21 of 1965), and it became effective from 25 September, 1965. The petitioners contended before the tribunal that they were not affected by the Act and that they would be entitled to the full amount of the bonus determined in accordance with the principles prev...
Mohamed MubIn Vs. Janta Cleaners and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ77Bom
Patel, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is an employee of respondent 1. He applied to the first labour court, respondent 2, for recovery of wages due from respondent 1 from July, 1964 to August 1965 and 63 days' earned wages for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 amounting to Rs. 73.50. Respondent 2 dismissed this application on the ground that as the petitioner sought to recover earned wages the matter did not lie within the provisions of S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it was a claim arising under a contract which the employer was bound to pay. We find from the labour court's order that though respondent 1 was served it did not care to appear but satisfied itself merely by filing an affidavit and yet the labour court dismissed this matter only on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. 2. Instead of wasting time in this manner in making discovery of law regarding the question of jurisdiction, if the labour court had considered the question on merits, probably, it wou...
Vasant Gopal Gurav and anr. Vs. F.M. Lyla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ182Bom
Per Patel, J.1. There was a dispute between the workers of the textile mills on the one hand and the Millowners' Association on the other in respect of the bonus payable to the textile workers for the year 1962. After negotiations this dispute was settled and an award in respect of the settlement was made. This was announced on 12 December, 1963. In some mills there were strikes and in some mills tension had also developed. There was strike in Sayaji Mills, Ltd., on 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 December, 1963. It appears that there were negotiations and it is said that the then Labour Minister intervened and asked the workers to resume work in the striking mills on obtaining an assurance from the Millowners' Association that the workers will not be victimized unless they were responsible for either causing violence or inciting violence. On 17 January, 1964, five of the workers in this mill were served with chargesheet for misconduct under standing orders 21(b) and 21(c), the first being for i...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay Vs. Its Workmen (Excluding ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ552Bom
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Government of Maharashtra, under S. 10(1)(d) read with S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for adjudication of a dispute between the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and the workmen (excluding those on the N.M.R. establishment) employed under it in the Western Maharashtra and Marathwada which arises out of a demand for adequate bonus for the year 1963-64 and 1966-65 made by the workmen. So far as the dispute relating to bonus for the year 1964-65 is concerned, it is undisputed that the case is governed by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Sri N. V. Phadke, on behalf of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, has raised a preliminary objection contending that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board is exempt from the liability to pay bonus by reason of the fact that it is an establishment in the public sector within the meaning of that expression in S. 2(16)(b) of the Payment of Bonus Act, which for the sake of brevity will hereafter be ref...
N. Nageshwar Roa Vs. Ruth Moses and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom54; (1968)70BOMLR404; ILR1968Bom768; 1968MhLJ631
Patel, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Co-operative Tribunal whereby it set aside the award made by the Registrar's Nominee and remitted the matter for retrial. The short facts necessary for the purpose of the case may be state as follows: The Petitioner, who was the original opponent No.1 in the reference, is the owner of the flat consisting of three rooms and a kitchen on the ground floor of a building known as 'Mirabelle' belonging to Mirabelle Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which (was?) the original disputant in the reference. The petitioner purchases this flat essentially for his personal residence. However, because o f certain difficulties in his way he could not occupy the said premises and he, therefore, gave the same to respondent No.1 as a licensee on June 9, 1962 for a period of eleven months. In November 1962 the Co-operative Society gave notice to the petitioner saving that respondent No...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Cilag Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR760(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax referring to this court a question of law arising out of its order relating to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60, for which the relevant previous year is the calendar year 1958, which is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee was entitled to have the sum of Rs. 63,478 received by it under the agreements dated 6th October, 1950, 1st March, 1954, and 23rd April, 1957, for the year 1959-60, set off under section 24(2) against its losses of the past year and carried forwards ?' 2. Although three agreements are mentioned in the question as framed by the Tribunal, the first of them, namely, the agreement dated 6th October, 1950, was superseded by the second agreement dated 1st March, 1954, and was not, therefore, subsisting at the material time. T...
Kisan Punjaji Vs. Yashodabai Mahadeo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR765; 1968MhLJ688
Deshmukh, J.1. This is a writ petition by one Kisan who is the defendant in a pending suit and who claims to be a tenant of survey No. 129/1 of mouza Akot. On his pleading in the civil suit, an issue of his tenancy was raised and referred to the revenue Courts as required by Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. All the three Revenue Courts, namely, the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar, the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, have answered the issue against the tenant. They all held that he is not a tenant. Being aggrieved by this finding, he has filed this petition,2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are not in dispute. One Punjaji, the grandfather of the present respondent Yashodabai, was admittedly the owner of survey No. 129/1. After his death, his son, Vithu, leased out that land for a period of 15 years by registered document dated February 21, 1935, to one Govinda. It appears that Vithu died and his daughte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›