Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-21-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC127; [1984(48)FLR448]; 1984LabIC691; (1984)ILLJ368SC; 1984(1)SCALE539; (1984)3SCC127; [1984]3SCR252; 1984(16)LC500(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution are filed by the employees of the General Insurance Companies and the All India Insurance Employees Association. The respondents are, Union of India, the General Insurance Corporation of India and four General Insurance companies.2. The petitioners challenge the Notification dated 30th September, 1980 of The Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) (Insurance) introducing what is called General Insurance (Nationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Second Amendment Scheme, 1980 as being illegal and violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution of India. 3. Prior to 1972, there were 106 General Insurance companies Indian and foreign. Conditions of service of these employees were governed by the respective contracts of service between the companies and the employees. On 13th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-19-1984
Reported in : AIR1985SC107; 1984(2)SCALE595; 1984(Supp)SCC720
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. This is an application under Article 136 of the Constitution and is directed against the decision of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing a writ petition made to that Court under Article 226. Petitioner is a Government company in which under Section 5 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation Act), 1973, Act 26 of 1973, (Nationalisation Act' for short), the right, title and interest of the owner of the Jagaldaga Colliery came to vest following nationalisation. The District Mining Officer, Palamu, raised a demand of dead rent as payable under the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960, amounting to Rs. 1,41,140.87 paise for the period May 1, 1973 to September 30, 1974. The certificate Officer constituted under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, IV of 1914, signed a certificate on the basis of the requisition of the Mining Officer and called upon the petitioner to satisfy the demand. The claim was resisted by the petitioner, on several grounds,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-09-1984
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas241(Bom)
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. The questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition filed by Escorts Ltd. and its shareholder and managing director are quite unique and important. The decision thereon may affect not only the petitioner-company but the entire corporate sector and the public financial institutions. Naturally, this writ petition has attracted considerable public attention both lay and legal. Quite a few facts are required to notice to appreciate the issue canvassed in this case. Though inferences sought to be down and the conclusions sought to be pressed by the parties form the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition differ, the facts themselves in the ultimate analysis are not very much in dispute.2. Till 1980, among the non-residents, only individuals of Indian nationality origin were given the facility to invest in Indian Industries; not the companies. The Government of India was eager to attract larger foreign remittances into India. In a report of the Wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-18-1984
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas126(Mad); (1984)IILLJ34Mad
Mohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act), is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of India. 2. We would first note the facts leading to Writ Appeals Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of Writ Petitions Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1979 is for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispense of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of the Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manger, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1875, of the file of the Second Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C. V. Raman, under section 41 of the Act. 3. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-16-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC684; AIR1984SC991; (1984)86BOMLR365; 1984CriLJ613; 1984CriLJ819; 1984(1)Crimes568(SC); 1984(1)Crimes926(SC); 1984(1)SCALE198; 1984(1)SCALE583; (1984)2SCC183; (1984
D.A. Desai, J.1. Respondent Abdul Rehman Antulay (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra from 1980 till he submitted his resignation on January 12, 1982, which became effective from January 20, 1982. He thus ceased to hold the office of the Chief Minister from January 20, 1982 but continues to be a sitting member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly till today.2. As the contentions canvassed before this Court are mainly questions of law, facts at this stage having a peripheral relevance in the course of discussion, it is unnecessary to set out the prosecution case as disclosed in the complaint filed by complainant Ramdas Shrinivas, Nayak (complainant for short) in detail save and except few a pertinent and relevant allegations. In the process the brief/history of the litigation may also be traced.3. The complainant moved the Governor of Maharashtra by his application dated September 1, 1981 requesting him to grant sanction to prose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-11-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Raj104; 1984()WLN291
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. These writ, petitions as per Schedules A & B raise common questions of law, though there may be some, addotopma; features in some of the petitions, a joint request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners M/s. M. Mridul, and I.J. Lodha, on behalf of the petitioner and A.K. Mathur. Additional Advocate General on behalf of the Slate of Rajasthan, that it would be in the interest of justice if they all are heard and decided together. Since I was of the view that the request was fair and reasonable, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.2. All the writ petitioners are claiming agricultural land in various parts of Sri Ganganagar district of Rajasthan State and their long drawn battle relates to the effort of the respondents to either take possession of some land by declaring surplus or refuseallotment under the various laws which would be referred a little later, and the rival efforts of the petitioners to hold on the land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-13-1984
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas603(Delhi); 1987(11)ECC124; 1987(30)ELT390(Del)
ORDER1. These petitions Cr. M(M) 205/83, Cr. M(M) 251/83 with Cr. 504/83 and Cr. M(M) 622/83 by K. T. Advani and Cr. M(M) 1054/83 Cr. 2056/83 Cr. M. 2113/ 83 and Cr. M. 2120/83 by Rajinder Singh Grover, under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, raised common questions of considerable importance, and of some difficulty, with regard to the rights, privileges and of procedural safeguards for a person, who has been granted bail in a case involving violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, pending investigation/ enquiry by the authorities under the Act into his conduct, and dealings, even through a formal complaint of the offence, if at all, is still to be filed. The proceedings against these two persons are distinct and independent but the petitions are being dealt with by a common order as the controversies are common. 2. Both the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after he was satisfied that, according to the authorities under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-18-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC1813; 1984(32)BLJR393; (1984)3CompLJ249(SC); [1984(49)FLR401]; 1986LabIC382; (1984)IILLJ507SC; 1984(2)SCALE406; 1984(Supp)SCC443; [1985]1SCR751; 1985(17)LC185(SC)
Desai, J.1. Bonus has a tantalizing influence on industrial workers. They look forward to it with a craving the degree of which is immeasurable. And for the employees any form of bonus has such a tremendous attraction that the time honoured concept of its being a profit sharing formula to fill in the gap between the fair wage and the living wage in the case of industrial workmen has been for all practical purposes displaced by the Payment of Bonus Act and bonus telescoping into Government service where there being no production and therefore it cannot be an incentive for higher production. And yet the management of The Model Mills, Nagpur (Employer for short) has most successfully thwarted the meagre expectation of minimum bonus to its workmen for full two decades.2. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, appellant herein, ('Union' for short) as an approved Union made four independent references Under Section 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ('Act' for short) against Model Mills...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1984
Reported in : ILR1984KAR205
ORDERMahendra, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the validity of the acquisition of their lands under the Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the State of Karnataka.2. Petitioners own lands at Bommasandra village in Anekal Taluk. Acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State of Karnataka to acquire their lands and various other persons under the Act by a notification dated 28-2-1981 under Section 28(1) published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 5-3-1981-Ann. 'A'. The petitioners were served with notices to show cause within 30 days from the date of service of notice as to why their lands should not be acquired. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25572, 25573 and 25574 of 1981 were served with notice on 28-3-1981 while the petitioner in W. P. No. 25575 of 1981 was served with notice on 26-3-1981. While the petitioner in W.P. No. 25572 of 1981 filed his objections on 11-5-1981, the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 25573 and 255...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-24-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC1688; (1984)3CompLJ49(SC); 1984(2)Crimes441(SC); [1984(49)FLR382]; 1984(2)SCALE218; (1984)4SCC222; [1985]1SCR626
Chandrachud C.J.1. These appeals raise a question of general public importance as to whether failure to pay the employers' contribution to the Provident Fund is continuing offence. If it is, no question of limitation can arise. On the other hand, if it is not a continuing offence, the complaint for non-payment of the contribution has to be filed within the stated period.2. The facts of these appeals vary from case to case but such variation is inconsequential for our purpose. We will therefore state the facts of a representative group of these cases which comprises Criminal Appeals Nos. 407-418 of 1979.3. On August 22, 1975 the Provident Fund Inspector, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, filed six complaints against the appellants and respondent 2, charging them with non-payment of employers' contribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act 19 of 1952, (referred to herein as 'the Act'). Respondent 2 is a Company called M/s. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Limited, of which appell...
Tag this Judgment!