Rajasthan Court August 1995 Judgments
Municipal Council Vs. Smt. Sarla Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN105
B.R. Arora, J.1. Smt. Sarla Devi (the original petitioner), who is a member of Scheduled Caste, was given appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur, for 28 days on daily wages basis by the order dated 2-5-84. This period of twenty-eight days was further extended for another twenty-eight days on 21-7-84. Therefore vide order dated 27-8-84. she was given appointment for the period of one year on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur, in the pay scale of Rs. 490-10-550-15-640-20-840 till the duly selected candidates from the Servic Selection Commission are mad available, whichever is earlier. The petitioner continued on the post of Lower Division Clerk upto 30-11-86 and thereafter she was not allowed to continue in service. The petitioner, therefore, by way of filing the writ petition, challenged her removal from the service by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The writ petition filed by the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Kaushalya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC603; 1996(2)WLC512
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant revision is filed against the order dated 10.4.1995 passed by learned District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/94 by means of which he allowed the interim maintenance Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 @ Rs. 250/- per month pending litigation from 3.9.1993 and also allowed Rs. 1000/-to Smt. Kaushalya to meet the expenses of the suit filed by the revisionist seeking divorce against her.2. Learned Counsel for the revisionist wanted to place certain affidavits filed in support of aforesaid application moved Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by Smt. Kaushalya with a view to reappraise those evidence in a revision.3. In my considered opinion re-appraisal of the evidence is not possible Under Section 115 C.P.C. In support of his argument the learned Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kishna v. Gulab reported in LLR1988 (1) 143.4. In the c...
Tag this Judgment!Rajveer Singh Vs. Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ143Raj; 1996WLC(Raj)UC280
Mohini Kapur, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Labour Court on March 21, 1987 by which the claim of the workman was not accepted. Hence he has approached this Court with the allegation that from August 19, 1981 to August 18, 1982 he was appointed as apprentice with the respondent and thereafter he was appointed as semi-skilled workman on the post of Welder in the regular pay scale on November 2, 1982. The petitioner met with an accident on March 5, 1983 in which his eyes were injured and he received treatment in the ESI Hospital. When he reported for duty on August 16, 1983 he was not allowed to do so and was informed that his services had already been terminated ashis employment was on contractual basis and the terms of the contract had expired. According to him the termination of his services tantamounts to retrenchment. It was also alleged that the contracts were in the form of limited periods, sometimes one month and sometimes two months. As the ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwarsingh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN108
B.J. Shethna, J.1 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 19.3.85 passed by respondent No. 3 reverting the petitioner from the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant (TRA) to the post of Upper Division Clerk (DDC). This Court stayed the operation of that order No. 4.4.85 in Stay Petition No. 542/85 and the stay was confirmed on 7.4.86.3. During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the petitioner came to be retired in 1992, as stated at the bar by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.4. The main ground under challenge in this petition is that while retaining the junior to the petitioner, the petitioner was reverted by the impugned order. The respondents have filed the reply, but they could not dispute the fact that the Juniors of the petitioner were continued in service. If his junior is continued then the petitioner cannot be reverted.5. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The i...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Labour Union Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ467Raj; 1996(2)WLC62
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner is a registered Labour Union related to A.I.T.U.C. The grievance put in this petition is that inspite of the claims having been allowed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Ajmer, Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), the concerned opposite partly failed to pay the wages awarded by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for a considerable period and no effective step is taken by the Authority for the recovery of the amount directed to be paid under Section 15 of the Act.2. Needless is to say, the Act of 1936 is a remedial legislation and the general purpose of the Act appears to provide that the employed persons, covered under the Act, be paid their wages in a particular form and at regular intervals and without any unauthorised deduction. The Act is aimed to compel employers who have employed certain persons drawing certain wages to make prompt and full payment of wages to which these em...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Naraini Devi Vs. Gopal Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC600; 1995(2)WLN359
Mohini Kapur, J.1. In the year 1973 the plaintiff petitioner instituted a suit for pre-emption and injunction. The relief (rayed for was that the plaintiff's suit for per-emption for the propery described in the plaint with red lines and marked as ABCD be decreed and the defendant No. 2 be directed to take the sale price and deliver possession over the property Another prayer was that during the pendency of suit the defendant No. 2 (purchaser) be restrained from making the constructions on the property marked as ABCD and DCEFGH. Alongwith the plaint an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved but this was dismissed. Now by way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to make several additions in the body of the plaint and also in the relief clause. The relief sought to be is that a declaration be made that ABCD and DCEFGH is part of a joint chowk of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and the construction which had been made on the joint chowk-be demolished and the prayer for p...
Tag this Judgment!Gopali (Smt.) Vs. Bhagchand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1995
Reported in: 1997ACJ682; (1998)IIILLJ507Raj; 1996(2)WLC451
Mohini Kapur, J. 1. The petitioner claimant filed a claim petition before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner, Tonk in respect of death of her daughter Hukma who died in an accident on January 28, 1991 by truck No. R.J.E. 8221. The petitioner's contention was that her daughter Hukma was working on the said truck for loading and unloading and was in employment of the truck owner, who is non-petitioner No-1. The accident occurred during the course of her employment, as such the claim was filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'). The petitioner applied for grant of interim compensation and this has been disallowed by the Commissioner by order dated December 18, 1992. It has been observed that prima facie it has not been satisfied that the deceased was an employee of the non-petitioner hence, no order can be passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short M.V.Act).2. A preliminary objection has been raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Vs. Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ576Raj
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman challenges the award dated, January 31, 1994 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur, to a limited extent that interest ought to have been awarded on the amount computed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner was an employee of M/s Emery Stone Manufacturing Company, Kuchaman Road, Nawa (respondent No. 2). He was removed from the service on May 4, 1977 and on raising an industrial dispute the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court as to whether the termination of the petitioner was illegal and unjustified. The Labour Court vide its award dated May 16, 1987 held the termination with back wages and other consequential benefits was granted in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Actfor computation of backwages. The Labour Court vide its award computed the back wag...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR463]; (1998)IIILLJ542Raj; 1996(3)WLC496
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioners are challenging the award dated April 23, 1994 passed by the Labour Court, Kota, on a reference made to it by the State Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that termination/retrenchment of the respondent-workman was illegal being in violation of the provisions contained in Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court therefore, directed for reinstatement of the workman with back wages and continuity of service.2. It cannot be disputed that the retrenchment/ termination of a workman for non-compliance of Section 25F is rendered invalid and inoperative. The effect of the same is that a retrenchment brought about without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F is no retrenchment/termination in the eye of law and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. This proposition of law is no more in dispute after a catena of...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC694; 1995(2)WLN619
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present revisionist filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application Under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC on the ground inter alia that in District Udaipur, there are two temples known as Jagdish Mandir and Jawan Swaroop Behari Mandir. Both these temples were constructed by Ex Ruler of Udaipur in Vikram Samvat 1709 and 1882 respectively. Shri Sunder Ram was appointed as Sevayat and Pujari of Jagdish Temple, which was hereditary in character. Shri Sunder Ram remained Pujari of this Temple till his life time and after his death his successors became Pujari of this temple. Similar facts are alleged in respect of Jawan Swaroop Behari temple.2. Notices were issued to the defendant opposite parties. They opposed the grant of temporary injunction to the revisionist Under Order39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC.3. Learned trial court rejected the Civil Misc. Case No. 158/89 and 104 of 1989 vide his order dated 4.8.94 holding that the plaintiff revisionist has no prima faci...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »