Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ244Bom
1. The petitioner is the owner and proprietor of the trade mark known as 'Anchor' used in respect of electrical accessories. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated June 29, 1987 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa - respondent No. 1. The said order was passed by respondent No. 1. The said order was passed by respondent No. 1. under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952' of the sake of brevity. By the said order respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that about 46 establishments in Bombay are nothing but the branches and/or departments belonging to the petitioner, formed only with the objective of subterfuging the laws meant for the purpose of social security of various employees under the Act of 1952.2. The said order is challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice. It was conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(5)BomCR214; 2004(3)MhLj746
A.P. Shah, J. 1. Rule, Respondents waive service. By consent rule is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the decision dated August 11, 2003 of the Film the Certification Appellate Tribunal and directing the respondents to grant certificate to the documentary film entitled 'Aakrosh' for its public exhibition under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.3. The petitioner is a well known activist and film maker. He is producer of documentary films and writes scripts for films. In 2003 the petitioner produced a documentary film in one reel (running time 18 minutes) called Aakrosh on communal riots that took place in Gujarat in the year 2002. The documentary makes a sincere attempt to give expression to the sufferings and woes of the survivors of the holocaust. This is done in a series of interviews. The documentary has deliberately avoided images of gruesome violence and dead bodies. It has limited itself to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1994(68)FLR1134]; (1995)ILLJ254Bom; 1994(1)MhLj273
M.G. Chaudhari, J.1. The applicant, Mandovi Pellets Ltd. Workers' Union, through its General Secretary, has applied for permission to intervene in the Writ Petition filed by Mandovi Pellets Ltd., Company against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Goa, and the Union of India. The petitioners are the employers and the applicant is the Union of Workers. The workers represented by the Union are the employees. 2. The Regional provident fund Commissioner (respondent No. 1), passed an order on 25th June, 1992, under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous to as 'the Act') applying the provisions of the act to the petitioners' establishment which manufactures iron ore pellets at their factory at Shiroda, Goa. The Commissioner has acted upon the Notification No. GSR 346 dated 7th March, 1962, issued by the Central Government. The said Order has been challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition. According to them, they are not covered by the provisions of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1971(22)FLR110]; (1968)IILLJ739Bom; 1969MhLJ361
Patel, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks to have the order made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner quashed. The said order is made under S. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952), and calls upon the petitioner-firm to pay the sums of Rs. 54,275 and Rs. 1,261 into his office. 2. The petitioner-firm is a partnership doing motor transport business. The Central Government framed a scheme under the said Act called the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). It issued a notification under S. 1(3)(b) of the Act of 1952 and applied the said scheme to road motor transport establishments from 30 April, 1959. Respondent 2 intimated to the petitioner by the letter dated 24 May, 1966, that the petitioner's establishment fulfilled the conditions for the application of the scheme with effect from 31 July, 1961; that code No. MB/6949 was allotted to it and that it should implement the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR211; 2006(2)BomCR398
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the record and proceedings received as per the order . passed on 24.1.2005. The Petitioners-Company has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai in Application (IT) No. 1 of 2002 filed in Reference (IT) No. 37 of 1992. It was an application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Petitioner-company and the same has been dismissed, as a result of which the dismissal order dated 21.2.2002 stands set aside.2. Rule. Mrs. Dutta waives service for the Respondent. Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith for final disposal.3. Brief facts leading to the impugned order and which are not disputed, could be summarised as under:The Respondent was in the employment of the Petitioner-Company as a semi skilled-A Grade Worker and was a confirmed employee. He was sanctioned leave from 13.6.2000 to 24.6.2000 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act ), the petitioner has prayed for an order of termination of mandate of the learned arbitrator, the respondent no.2 herein on the grounds mentioned in the arbitration petition and seeks an appointment of any other suitable person as a sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The learned arbitrator is absent, though served. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The respondent no.1 had awarded a contract to the petitioner for implementation of Nagpur Butibori Wardha Talegaon Karanja Malegaon Mehkar Shindkhed Raja Jalna Aurangabad Vaijapur Sanwatsar Puntamba Phata Zagde Phata Sinnar Ghoti N H Standard Road; Section Loni Nagzari Kherda Karanja including Karanja Bye-pass road, Package 6 on the terms and conditions contained in the said contract dated 2nd March, 2001. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR28; (1992)94BOMLR105; [1993]77CompCas54(Bom)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. This writ petition seeks to challenge an interlocutory order of injunction passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') in I.T.A. No. 50 of 1991 in UTPE No. 157 of 1991 dated December 12, 1991, as evidenced by exhibit F. 2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of Jyothi Laboratories operating from Borivli, Bombay. Another operator in the same field but in the far South-Coimbatore is the third respondent. The two entrepreneurs have come to legal blows over the quality of the blue they manufacture. 'Ujala' manufactured by the petitioner sought coverage, among other things, through magnetic media - Doordarshan. That is per se not objectionable. There is, even if in restricted areas, at least a partial survival of the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest. However, hitting below the belt is indeed immoral. Such was the allegation made by the third respondent against the petitioner before the seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR559; [2006(108)FLR890]; 2005(3)MhLj105
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This petition arises out of an order passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai on 23rd October, 2001 in a reference to adjudication by which the enquiry in a disciplinary proceeding was held to be fair and proper, but, the finding was declared to be perverse.2. On 19th January, 1991 charge-sheets were issued to ten workmen. A disciplinary proceeding was held in respect of misconducts that were alleged to have been committed on 22nd August, 1990 and 14th September, 1990. In respect of the incident of 22nd August, 1990, the allegation was that the workmen had unauthorizedly left their work place; resorted to an illegal and unjustified stoppage of work and that they had participated in a gherao of the Managing Director and the General Manager in-charge of production. The second incident is alleged to have taken place on 14th September, 1990 during the course of which the workmen are alleged to have instigated other workmen to proceed on an illegal strike. The workmen wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)ALLMR769; 2001(1)BomCR22; [2000(87)FLR1008]; (2001)IIILLJ659Bom
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. Misconduct not proved, can reinstatement be denied to the workman? This is the significant question of law which arises in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Relevant facts 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Helper with the first Respondent Company on January 7, 1991. After successfully completing the probationary period he was confirmed as a permanent employee. The Petitioner claims that throughout his service record was good. On June 12, 1995 the management signed a settlement with the Trade Union known as Shramik Utkarsha Sabha. According to the Petitioner, this settlement was not liked by majority of the workmen. Majority of employees left Shramik Utkarsha Sabha and joined another union viz. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mahasangh'). Petitioner was one of the founder members of the said Mahasangh in the first Respondent's establishment. According to the Petitioner, the formation of the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(3)BomCR412; [2001(88)FLR1011]; (2001)ILLJ884Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner company has challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two awards dated September 9, 1996 and May 30, 1998 in reference IDA No. 501 of 1987 by the two Labour Courts respectively.2. One Shri Sane is the concerned workman in the present petition. Though the President of his union is impleadcd as the Respondent No. 1, I would be referring hereinafter Shri Sane, the concerned workman, as the workman. Broadly, the facts which have arisen are as follows:The workman joined the company on February 20, 1974 and he was working as a machine operator. On October 20, 1985 he was served with a charge sheet, whereby, he was charged of commission of theft of company's property and also an act of subversive of discipline. The workman submitted his reply to the said charge sheet denying the charges as false, fabricated and an act of victimisation. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the workman, the petitioner company institu...
Tag this Judgment!