Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker110
orderc.a. vaidialingam, j.1. in this writ petition the peti-tioner seeks to have the order passed by the state government, ex. p-3 on 5th of february 1904 placing the petitioner under suspension pending fresh disciplinary proceedings contemplated in be taken against him. quashed. ex. p-4 dated, 28th of february 1964 is only a consequential order passed by the district registrar, kozhikode, passed on the basis of the government order ex. p-3. therefore, the validity of ex. p-4. depends upon the view to be expressed by this court regarding the validity of ex. p-3 order and so kx. p-4 need not be considered separately.2. the main allack that is levelled against the proceedings sought to be initialed as contemplated in ex. p-3 is that for the same offence for which fresh action is contemplated under ex. p-3 the petitioner was once punished by way of disciplinary action dismissing him from service, as will be seen from the order ex. p-1. that order us well as the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings which led to it were challenged by the petitioner in this court in o. p. no; 1493 of 1962 (ker) under article 226 of the constitution; and on the merits this court quashed the entire proceedings by its judgment, ex. p-2 daled 29th august. 1963, according to learned counsel for the petitioner the decision rendered by this court in o. p. xo. 1493 of 1962 operates as res judicata in these proceedings.3. no doubt the learned government pleader controverts the stand taken by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1985Ker134
m.p. menon, j. 1. a.s. no. 17/78 wan appeal from a decree in a suit. the respondent in the appeal passed away on 12-12-1981 and as his legal representatives were not impleaded in time the appeal abated. the appellant thereafter filed c.m.p. nos. 6533/82 and 6534/82 for impleading legal representatives and for setting aside abatement, but these were dismissed by a learned single judge. c.m.a. 185/84 is an appeal against that dismissal, and the question is whether an appeal would lie to a bench of two judges of this court, from an order of a single judge refusing to set aside the abatement of a first appeal. according to counsel, such an appeal would lie either under order 43 rule 1(k) of the code of civil procedure read with section 104 thereof, or under section 5(ii) of the kerala high court act, 1958. 2. section 104(1) of the code conceives of appeals against certain classes of orders, and one such order, under order 43 rule 1(k) is 'an order under rule 9 of order 22 refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit'. rule 9 of order 22 provides for an application to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit and the combined effect of these provisions is that an appeal would lie from an order refusing to set aside the abatement of a suit. since rule 11 of order 22 further provides that the word 'suit' in that order shall be held to include an appeal, an application to set aside abatement of an appeal is also possible. but these are insufficient to hold that an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker176
gopalan nambiyar, c.j. 1. these appeals are against the decision of a learned judge and raise the question of the validity of the prevailing system of admissions to the medical colleges of this state. the grounds of attack raised in writ petitions which have given rise to these appeals, may be classified under two broad heads: attack against the reservation of a certain proportion of seats to be filled up from the geographical limits of what is generally referred to as the 'malabar area' of this state; andattack basically against the scheme of admissions to the medical colleges in this state on an assessment of the merit of students drawn from different universities, stated to be with no uniformity of standards in the matter of syllabus or curriculum of studies, or assessment of results. the learned judge, to state again broadly, upheld the challenge against the reservation of a proportion of seats to students from the malabar area, and held that the said reservation was unconstitutional; against which, the state and party-respondent have preferred appeals. regarding the regulation of admission of students drawn from different universities with no uniformity of standards, and probably, if not apparently, with no uniformity of syllabus, the learned judge held that the writ petitioners were well-founded in their submissions about the arbitrariness and inequality of the rules regulating admissions. after examining the decisions to which reference will be made in the course of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2001Ker89
radhakrishnan, j. 1. appellant in m.f.a. 768/87 filed o.a. 72/1977 before forest tribunal, palakkad under section 8 of the kerala private forest (vesting and assigment) act, act 26 of 1971, for exemption of 232.13 acres of land. those areas were claimed as eucalyptus plantations, grass lands/waste lands, which were not enclaves within wooded areas, fire-belt, water sources and cardamom and coffee plantations. all the 232.13 acres were divided into 14 plots. forest tribunal vide its order dated 19-7-1980 had allowed the application holding that the disputed lands do not form part of a vested forst under the provisions of the kerala private forests (vesting and assignment) act, 1971. matter was taken up in appeal by the state before this court vide m.f.a. 177/ 81. appeal was allowed by this court and directed the forest tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties. against the judgment of this court in m.f.a. 177/81 the company preferred slp. 14401/86 before the supreme court. supreme court disposed of the slp stating that the competent authority would decide the matter objectively in accordance with law on the basis of the material placed before it in the light of its own assessment. 2. the forest tribunal then heard the matter afresh and passed order dated 31st july, 1987. out of the 14 items, with respect to items 1, 3 and 11 to 14 forest tribunal took the view that those areas are waste lands which are lying adjoining or bordered by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
k.t. sankaran, j. 1. the petitioners in w.p.(c) no.14058 of 2009 are working as overseer grade i in the engineering wing of local self government department (hereinafter referred to as lsgd), while the petitioners in w.p.(c) no.4414 of 2008 are working as assistant engineers in the lsgd. 2. after the amendment of the constitution of india by the 73rd amendment, the kerala panchayat raj act, 1994 was enacted. before the 1994 panchayat raj act, the engineering staff of the panchayats were governed by the kerala panchayat common service rules, 1977. they had limited chances of promotion. stagnation occurred in the entry cadre post for several years. in the year 1998, the pay revision committee took note of the lack of promotion avenues to the engineering staff of the panchayat department and made some suggestions. after the constitution 73rd amendment, the functional responsibility of the engineering staff of panchayats and municipalities in the state were substantially enhanced. under the kerala panchayat raj act, 1994, a new set of special rules came into existence, namely, the kerala panchayats subordinate service rules, 1994, which were brought into force with retrospective effect from 1.1.1990. the 1994 rules did not contain the post of assistant engineer. later, the government issued special rules for the kerala panchayat services in 2006, as per g.o.(p)no.47/2006/lsgd, which came into force with effect from 3.2.2006. the said rules provide for the qualification and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker67a; (1959)IILLJ610Ker
m.s. menon, j. 1. these petitions wore heard together. they challenge the validity of a notification of the government of kerala dated 26-2-1958 under section 3(1)(a)of the minimum wages act, 1948 (central act xi of 1948). that notification was published in the kerala gazette on 4-3-1958 and (omitting the schedule thereto) reads as follows :'in exorcise of the powers conferred by cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of section 3 of the minimum wages act, 1948 (central act xi of 1948) government are hereby pleased to fix the minimum rotes of wages payable to the employees in agricultural operations in the territories referred to in section 5(2) of the states reorganisation act, 1956 (central act xxxvii of 1956) as malabar district, the same having been previously published as required by cl. (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said act. this notification shall come into force with effect from the date of this notification.' 2. the territories which constitute the main-bar district in the state of kerala under section 5(2) of the states reorganisation act, 1956, are the territories comprised in the old malabar district of the madras state, excluding the islands of laccadi-ves and minicoy and the kasargod taluk of the south kanara district.3. sub-section (1) of section 5 of the minimum wages act, 1948 provides :'in fixing the minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under this act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the appropriate .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ265Ker
..... 39 of 1967 wherein the issue referred to the tribunal related to the validity of the action taken by the management in retrenching from its service seven workmen on the ground that they were rendered surplus consequent on a reorganization of the company's business with a view to effect economy in its operation and the conversion of the divisional office in cochin into a mere depot. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... (annexure ii in the application) note: the certifier veteran freedom fighters in respect of underground suffering, internment/externment and the applicant should belong to the same administrative unit before the reorganization of states and their area of operation must be the same. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1963]14STC969(Ker)
m.s. menon, c.j.1. the assessee-the malayalam plantations limited-is the petitioner before us. the assessment year is the financial year 1957-5812. the sales concerned were sales by auction in fort cochin of tea stored on willingdon island. in the light of the decision of the supreme court in a.v. thomas & co., ltd. v. deputy commissioner of agricultural income-tax and sales tax, trivandrum [1963] 14 s.t.c. 363, these sales should be considered as having taken place in fort cochin.3. the assessment was made under the general sales tax act, 1125. that act-originally called the travancore-cochin general sales tax act, 1125-came into operation in fort cochin only on 1st october, 1957. it was as a result of the travancore-cochin general sales tax (amendment) act, 1957.4. the material date to fix the liability is the date of the sale and there can be no doubt that the assessment of all sales from 1st october, 1957, to 31st march, 1958, under the general sales' tax act, 1125, is justified and has to be sustained.5. the period from 1st april, 1957, to 30th september, 1957, stands on a different footing. during that period the sales tax law in force in fort cochin was the madras general sales tax act, 1939, and consequently the assessment under the general sales tax act, 1125, was not in order and cannot be sustained.6. it is true that fort cochin became part of the kerala state as a result of the states reorganisation act, 1956, on and from 1st novem ber, 1956. but that, however, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ23Ker
v.p. gopalan nambiyar, j.1. this appeal is directed against the decision of a learned judge of this court in two writ petitions disposed of by a common judgment, namely, o.p. no. 2710 and 3660 of 1970. the writ petitions were directed against the award of the industrial tribunal, calicut. two industrial disputes were referred for adjudication by the tribunal, i.d. no. 14 of 1967, and i.d. no. 39 of 1967. i.d. no. 14 of 1967 was in respect of the withholding of increment to one venkatraman, an employee under the respondent-company, namely, m/s. blundell eomite paints ltd. i.d. no. 39 of 1967 with which we are intimately concerned in these appeals was in respect of the termination of service by retrenchment of certain workers of the company. in respect of the affair relating to venkatraman, and of certain demands raised by the union of workers, conciliation proceedings were attempted to be started and the conciliation officer had issued notice to the management on 14 11-1966. on 25-11-1966 the management sent a letter to the conciliation officer refer-ring to the demands of the union, and stating that the same would be considered, and requesting not to precipitate matters by starting conciliation proceedings. on 1-12-1966, to which date again the conciliation officer adjourned the proceeding, the management prayed for time. thereafter, on 25-12-1966 it retrenched all except two of its employees in the cochin division, with effect from 1-1-1967. it was this retrenchment that was .....
Tag this Judgment!