Mumbai Court October 1969 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.
The Engineering Mazdoor Sabha Vs. S. Taki Bilgrami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1969
Reported in: (1971)ILLJ77Bom; 1970MhLJ734
K.K. Desai, J.1. The question which is raised on behalf of the workmen does not relate, in our view, to the question of the lock-out being illegal but to the question of the company having proved facts which absolved the company from payment of any wages to the workmen for the period of the lock-out. When the Tribunal held that the lock out was justified it was aware that the lock-out was illegal. The word 'justified' was used by the Tribunal in connection with the question of relief which the workmen should be entitled to for the period of the lock-out. Now, it is true that, in law, what is illegal can never be held to be justified, but it is true that the consequence of a lock-out being declared illegal must be that, for the period of that illegal lock-out workmen must be entitled to payment of wages. It is true that, ordinarily, when workmen are, against their consent, and desire, not allowed to enter factory premises, it should be held in their favour that, for the period during wh...
Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and ors. Vs. S. Taki Belgrami and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom402; (1970)72BOMLR477; ILR1970Bom1157
K.K. Desai, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated December 14, 1965, whereby the Tribunal held in favour of the workmen of the 2nd respondent-Company that the lockout declared by the Company from January 13. 1964, was Illegal, and even so. In connection with the question of relief which the workmen claimed it held that the lockout was justified and the workmen would not be entitled to any relief The Tribunal further held that 114 workmen whose services were terminated from April 18, 1964; without any enquiry made in that connection, were not to 'go slow' (Production) and, in spite of notices dated January 9, 1964, and January 12, 1964, refused to give an undertaking demanded by the Company that they would not resort to go-slow tactics, that they would behave in a disciplined way and that they would give proper production to the satisfaction of the management. The finding was that as this reasonable de...
Tanaba Chindhuji Bhokare Vs. the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom143; (1971)73BOMLR161; ILR1971Bom384
ORDER1. The question which arises in this petition is whether the Collector in the course of an enquiry under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act. 1961, hereafter referred to as the Ceiling Act, has jurisdiction to decide an issue of tenancy if such an issue arises before him. Proceedings for determination o surplus land commenced on a return filed under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act by respondent No. 4 Mandakinibai, who is referred to hereafter as the holder, were pending before the Special Deputy Collector, Yeotmal. The petitioner appeared in these proceedings after a notice under Section 17(1) was caused to be given by the deputy Collector. After the petitioner appeared he put in a written objection and it was his contention that he was a tenant of survey numbers 3, area 28 acres and 36 gunthas, and 5 area 16 acres and 32 gunthas of Mukharampur since before the year 1957-58 and that these two fields could not be declared as surplus land. It may...
H.R. Syiem Vs. P.S. Lulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR534
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This appeal comes to me on a difference of opinion between Tarkunde J. and Vimadalal J. On a previous occasion when I had heard the appeal an objection was taken that in the original order of reference dated April 24, 1968 the points on which the learned Judges differed had not been stated and that therefore such a statement was necessary having regard to Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. I had therefore made an order on March 14, 1969 requesting the learned Judges to state the points on which they differed and which required decision by me. By an order passed on March 21, 1969 the learned Judges have now stated the following questions for my decision :-1, Whether the Assistant Collector of Customs was wrong in holding that the black insulating tapes imported by the respondent fell within the expression 'adhesive tapes' in entry No. 38 in Part II of the Policy Statement in the Red Book. 2. If so, whether this Court can, in the exercise if its powers under Article 226...
Union of India Vs. L.M. Pinto and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1969
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ6Bom
K.K. Desai, J.1. This petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution is for quashing of the order dated January 27, 1967, passed by the appellate authority prescribed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 whereby the Authority held in favour of the respondents 2 and 3, the original applicants, that they were entitled to their full wages for the period of suspension and that the deductions made from their salaries for the period of suspension were illegal deductions. The authority, therefore, ascertained and directed payment of these deductions subsequently by the order dated March 27, 1967. 2. The relevant facts which lead to this petition are as follows : In July, 1960 a general strike of railway workers took place. The strike was an illegal strike. L. M. Pinto and D. S. Korgaonkar, being respectively respondents 2 and 3 to this petition and the original applicants before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act were alleged to have taken part in this strike on July 16, 1960....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›