Rajasthan Court September 1954 Judgments
Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj274
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are two connected applications under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India. Application No. 25 is by Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali, and application No. 30 is by the Mevvar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara. As the points raised in the two applications are exactly the same, we propose to decide them by one judgment.2. The case of the applicants is briefly this. The Government of Rajasthan, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 7, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, constituted an Industrial Tribunal of one member on 2-6-1953, and appointed Shri S.S. Mehta on it for adjudication of certain industrial disputes referred to the Tribunal. The notification in paragraph 2 fixed the date from which the Tribunal would start to function, and also fixed the term of the appointment of Shri Mehta. The appointment of Shri Mehta was notified to be for the financial year 1953-54.In pursuance of this notification, Shri Mehta started work as Industrial Tribunal for decid...
Tag this Judgment!Rudi and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Raj75; 1955CriLJ734
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate, Alwar recommending that the order of the learned Extra Magistrate First Class, Alwar, dated 21-11-1953 attaching the well in dispute be set aside. When the case was pending in revision in the court of the learned District Magistrate, an application was made on behalf of Rudia and other (hereinafter to be referred to as the applicants) that the order of attachment be not given effect to pending the application for revision made by him.This application was rejected by the learned District Magistrate on 30-12-1953 and against that order too, the applicants have come in revision to this Court. This revision is No. 21 of 1954. As the said revision is an off shoot of the revision in which reference has been made, I have heardl both the cases together and they are being disposed of by this single judgment.2. Taking up the reference first, it was argued by Mr. G. L. Yadav supporting the reference that the case was Under ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›