Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1994; 2001(49)BLJR1350; [2001(89)FLR552]; JT2001(4)SC327; 2001LabIC1397; (2001)ILLJ1400SC; 2001(2)SCALE626; (2001)4SCC55; [2001]2SCR553; 2001(2)SCT371(SC); (2001)2
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The management of the Bhugatdih Rise Area Colliery was taken over by the Central Government under the Coking Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 which came into effect on October 17, 1971. Subsequently, the Colliery stood nationalised with effect from May 1, 1972 under the provisions of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Nationalisation Act'). 111 workmen who were working in these collieries were laid off by the management in 1971 and subsequently retrenched from service. Some of the workers of the Bhugatdih Colliery were taken back in employment though they were purely temporary workmen on daily basis. The Union of the workmen demanded employment of these 111 workers but the respondents did not employ them. Thereafter, a dispute whether the action of the management of Industrial Colliery of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited in refusing employment to 111 workmen listed in the Annexure below was justified and, if not, to what relief ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8634 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.22813 of 2007) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and others Appellants Versus Bajrangi Rabidas Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. Calling in question the legal sustainability of the judgment and order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in F.M.A. No.169 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench has overturned the judgment and order dated 14.6.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.5700(W) of 2001 whereunder he had given the stamp of approval to decision dated 26.2.2004 by the General Manager of the appellant-company, who had rejected the objection of the respondent for changing his date of birth as recorded in his service excerpts and Form B Register, the appellants have preferred their appeal by special leave.3. The facts which are requisite to be exposited are that the respondent had joined at Chinakuri Mine No.11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1720 of 2017 Debasis Patra & Others --- Petitioners Versus Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), New Delhi & Others --- Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 2386 of 2017 Arvind Kumar Singh & Others --- Petitioners Versus Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), New Delhi & Others --- Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. 06/10.10.2017 Petitioners in both the writ petitions alongwith few others represented before the Director (R.M.& L), SAIL for grant of promotion to executive cadre in E-1/E-0 claiming that they are holders of 1st /2nd Class Manager's Certificate of Competency under Coal Mines Regulation,1957 (for short CMR) issued by Director General of Mines Safety (for short DGMS), Dhanbad serving under the respondents as Mining Supervisors/Surveyors and/or other equivalent post...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1720 of 2017 Debasis Patra & Others --- Petitioners Versus Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), New Delhi & Others --- Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 2386 of 2017 Arvind Kumar Singh & Others --- Petitioners Versus Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), New Delhi & Others --- Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. 06/10.10.2017 Petitioners in both the writ petitions alongwith few others represented before the Director (R.M.& L), SAIL for grant of promotion to executive cadre in E-1/E-0 claiming that they are holders of 1st /2nd Class Manager's Certificate of Competency under Coal Mines Regulation,1957 (for short CMR) issued by Director General of Mines Safety (for short DGMS), Dhanbad serving under the respondents as Mining Supervisors/Surveyors and/or other equivalent post...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR217]; [2004(1)JCR66(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 31.3.1993, passed in Reference Case No. 41 of 1988 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. The Tribunal heard four Reference Cases, including Reference Case No. 41 of 1988, or the preliminary point of maintainability and held that they are not maintainable in view of the Coal Mines Nationalization Law (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Amendment Act' for Short).2. The petitioner, an employee of Loyabad colliery, after due enquiry was dismissed on 6.4.1968 on the charge of defalcation of money, belonging to the Cooperative Stores of the Colliery. Under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973 ('Nationalization Act' for short), the Colliery was nationalized. It appears that a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner regarding the said defalcation in which he was acquitted by judgment-dated 9.10.1980. The petitioner claims that he made a representation for his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(II)OLR617
I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner Tor Steel Research Foundation in India (in short, TRFI) which established Orissa Sponge Iron and Steel Limited (in short, OSIL) in collaboration with the Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited (IPICOL) which is a wholly State-owned Government of Orissa Undertaking has sought the relief for restraining IPICOL-Opposite party No. 2 from illegal and fraudulent selling, transferring and handing over of their shareholdings in OSIL to any person, party or agency except in accordance with the Articles of Association of the Company.2. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with the selling or purchasing of shares but as the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 (IPICOL) are the founder shareholders of the OSIL by entering into an agreement between them for establishing the Company and consented for registration of Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company OSIL which is binding on both pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC851; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)405; [2005(104)FLR820]; JT2005(1)SC449; (2005)ILLJ853SC; (2005)2SCC638; 2005(2)SLJ358(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1470
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Maruti Udyog Limited, the Appellant herein, is a Government company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956. In terms of a notification issued under Section 6 of the Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') the undertakings of the Maruti Limited (the Company) has vested in the Appellant. It is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 837 of 1995 whereby and whereunder a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge dated 19.4.1995 passed in C.W.P No. 15728 of 1993 questioning an Award dated 28.7.1993 passed by the Labour Court in Reference Nos. 437, 438 and 166 of 1988, was set aside.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The Respondents herein who are three in number were appointed by Maruti Limited as Electrician, Helper and Assistant Fitter with effect from 274 1974, 8.11.1973 and 8.4.1974 respectiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC3281; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)15; 1996(2)Crimes181(SC); JT1996(5)SC128; 1996(4)SCALE307; (1996)8SCC540; [1996]Supp2SCR620
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 24/81 dated 26.8.1988 on the file of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), this appeal is filed by special leave.2. The appellant preferred a complaint under Section 73 of the Mines Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Regulation No. 100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation'). The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be stated in brief to appreciate the contentions raised before us. The facts are as under :3. Kamptee Colliery originally was owned by the Oriental Coal Company Limited. At the instance of the agent of Oriental Coal Company Limited, the Director General of Mines safety granted permission on 2.1.1971 under Regulation 100(1) of the Regulations to split pillars in conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing in No. 1 seem in the area. Later on, the agent of the Oriental Coal Company Limited applied for certain modifications in conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ207Jhar
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner's case appears to have a chequered history. He was appointed as a Miner Loader under the erstwhile Murlidih Colliery way back in the year 1967. In the same year he contracted Tuberculosis and remained under medical treatment at the C.H.D., Dhanbad. After recovery from his illness, he obtained a certificate from C.H.D., Dhanbad declaring him fit for duty. However, inspite of the fitness certificate issued by the doctor, the erstwhile Management of the Murlidih colliery did not allow him to join duty. In the meantime, all the private mines including the Murlidih colliery was taken over by the new management of the B.C.C.L. under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973. The petitioner approached the new management for allowing him to resume duty but the same was refused even by the new Management. The petitioner pursued his claim by raising an industrial dispute. Initial attempt for conciliation by the Commissioner, having failed, the dispute was refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1917; (1972)IILLJ259SC; (1972)2SCC383; [1973]1SCR594; 1973(5)LC196(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. These six appeals on certificate granted by the Patna High Court in two separate judgments disposing of six civil writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law and will, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The appellant owns six collieries, but we are concerned in the present controversy only with two collieries, namely, Sijua and Bhelatand. Due to shortage of power, the appellant decided to stagger the weekly rest days in all the collieries. By a notice dated September 10, 1963 a new Schedule of rest days was introduced in accordance with which Sijua colliery was to have every Wednesday as a rest day and Bhelatand colliery every Friday as a rest day. With respect to Bhelatand colliery Friday was later changed to Thursday. It is common ground that previously Sunday was the weekly rest day in all the six collieries. The change in the weekly days of rest was to take effect from September 15, 1963 which was a Sunday. The workers of the collieries did n...
Tag this Judgment!