Patna Court August 1995 Judgments
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
A.K. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated January 14, 1994 passed by respondent No.2, the Presiding Officer-cum-Authority, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in P. W. Case 16 of 1987 directing the petitioner - Company to make payment of bonus to its 25 Supervisors. 2. Those supervisors have neither made complaints to any one about their claim of bonus nor were they present at any stage of the proceeding before the Presiding Officer-cum-Authority. Labour Court, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 2). 3. Brief facts of the case may be outlined hereunder: In the course of inspection of Noamundi Iron Mines of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the TISCO) one Sri A.N. Malhotra, Asistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chaibasa allegedly directed that the petitioner Company had not paid Bonus to its 25 Supervisors amounting to Rs. 97,022.00 for the accounting year 1985-86 within the specified limit and as such the amount remained due. On th...
Tag this Judgment!Dineshwar Mahto and ors. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
S.K. Homchaudhuri and Gurusharan Sharma, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitoner and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties.2. This proceeding under contempt of court has been initiated against the opposite parties on the basis of the Court contained in the order dated 4.3.1993 passe in CWJC No 3658 of 1992 (r)3. The oppiosite parties in their show cause have contended that the list of the persons displced due to construction of the project not having been submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of the district, they could not comply with the direction to consider the cases of the petitiners for employment inasmuch as the displaced persons as per the approved list of the Deputy Commissioner are entitled for consideration of employment. The contenion of the opposite parties is not controverted by the petitioners.4. That being so, in our opinion, there was no wilful disobeience on the part of the opposite parties in carrying out the direction of this Court and the proceeding ou...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. The petitioner who is the owner of the truck has moved this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 4.10.89 by which the truck of the petitioner has been ordered to be confiscated under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (shortly the E.C. Act), 1955. He has also prayed for quashing the notice dated 27.1.89 initiating a proceeding under the E.C. Act.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. In the written report of the Forest Ranger, Balumath, it was alleged that on receiving the confidential information he apprehended truck No. BHH 645 which was carrying 'katha' for illegal purposes/business. Further allegation is that when the petitioner and the khalasi failed to escape with the truck, started throwing some plastic bags containing katha from the truck. The D.F.C. could not arrest him as the petitioner and the khalasi fled away. The said katha along with the truck were seized. On such allegation being made initially a case under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›