Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(4)AIRKarR623;
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. These two writ petitioners are directed against the award dated 8.9.2006 in I.D.Nos. 130 to 166/2005 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore.2. Petitioner in W.P.No. 4162/2007 is by the Management, party No. 2(a) before the Labour Court. Petitioner in W.P.No. 4163/2007 is another Management party No. 2(b) before the Labour Court. Petitioners will be referred to as BPL and Sanyo BPL for convenience.3. BPL is the company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was engaged in manufacturing of colour T.V. It had made an application before the Kerala High Court under Sections 351 to 354 of the Companies Act, inter alia seeking arrangement for restructuring of the company in application No. 84/2004. The Company Court allowed the said application by permitting the BPL to restructure its arrangement and in this regard the Kerala High Court by order dated 23.8.2005 approved a Scheme. In terms of the Scheme, BPL made negotiations wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)ALT(Cri)663; 2000(3)KarLJ115
ORDER1. The petitioner herein reported to the Hubli Rural Police alleging that the respondents have misappropriated the amount collected from the employees of the 'Navanadu Dinapatrike' and on the basis of that report, the said police registered a case and after investigating the same filed the charge-sheet in C.C. No. 169 of 1988. In the meantime it appears, the petitioner also filed a private complaint before the Court in C.C. No. 144 of 1988. As these two cases arose from the complaints of the same complainant on identical allegations against the common accused persons, both the cases were clubbed at the request of the prosecution and tried by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 469 of 1989. In support of the case of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 5 were marked. After assessing the evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted both the accused persons. Being aggrieved by that judgment and order, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short, 'the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR936]; 2002(4)KarLJ99
Chindananda Ullal, J.1. This appeal is filed by the ESI Corporation to challenge the order dated 2-4-1997 in ESI Application No. 13 of 1990 passed by the ESI Court, in passing whereof, the said Court while allowing the Application had set aside the order dated 27-3-1989 in No. KAR.INS.I.53-7907-91 passed by the appellant-ESI Corporation under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, henceforth in brief referred to as the 'Act'.2. The appellant-Corporation is represented by its Counsel, Smt. Geethadevi, whereas the contesting respondent I having been served with notice had remained absent before Court. The respondents 2 and 3 being the State Authorities also having been served with notice, had remained absent before Court. The learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Ashok Mensinkai, being present before Court had taken notice for the said respondents. Accordingly, he is permitted to file memo of appearance for the said respondents within a period of four weeks.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-4 DT.25-3-2003 VIDE ANN. Q.) NAGARATHNA J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.03.2003 passed in M.A.No.55/2003 (Annexure-Q) by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRAT’ for the sake of convenience). By the said order DRAT directed the respondent-Bank to receive the balance amount of Rs.63.00 lakh and release the title deeds related to the scheduled property to the 3rd respondent-institution which was to discharge the entire amount due to the Bank. The 3rd respondent-institution was directed to deposit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as "DRT"), at Bangalore, a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh due to the borrower within two weeks from the date of the impugned order with a further direction to the Presiding Officer DRT to return the said amount to the borrower i.e., the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1965)ILLJ373Kant; (1964)1MysLJ526
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal under S. 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The material facts are these. The respondent before us is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act carrying on a tailoring business. The appellant which is the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the provisions of S. 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, called upon the respondent to pay contribution under S. 40(1) of the Act to the fund to be created under its provisions. The respondent was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 300 for the period between 31 July 1960 and 28 January 1961 on what is described as an ad hoc basis. The only ground on which this demand was resisted by the respondent was that the respondent was not a factory within the meaning of S. 2(12) of the Act. Thereupon the appellant-Corporation made an application under S. 75(2) of the Act to the Employees' State Insurance Court for a direction that the respondent should make...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR248]; 2001(3)KarLJ263
H.N. Narayan, J.1. The appellant filed an application before the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore, under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('the Act' for short), to declare that the applicant is not obliged to pay Employees' State Insurance contribution on the packing charges paid to Tea Trading Corporation of India and to restrain the respondent from recovering a sum of Rs. 17,6857- being its contribution.2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is a company, engaged in blending and packing of tea having its factory at Bangalore. It employed 250 workmen at Bangalore and all of them are covered under the Act. The appellant has given the joh of packing of tea to an outside contractor. The Tea Trading Corporation of India which is a Government of India undertaking, unit at Coimbatore, was given contract for packing and despatch of tea. There is no supervision done by the appellant in regard to packing work done at Coimbatore. The appellant is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR651; 1993(1)KarLJ397; (1993)IILLJ283Kant
1. These three Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the appellant against a common order dated March 7, 1992, passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 81 of 1990, 5 and 6 of 1991. The learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissed Cr. A. No. 6 of 1991, whereas he allowed Cr. A. Nos. 81 of 1990 and 5 of 1991 in part. Since these three Criminal Revision Petitions are filed by the same appellant against a common order passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in these three appeals. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The respondent filed complaint against the petitioner at C.C. No. 2744 of 1988 alleging that the petitioner has not filed his returns of Employees' State Insurance Corporation in time....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR2784; 2003(5)KarLJ127; (2003)IIILLJ1039Kant
Majage, J.1. The appellant Corporation has challenged the order dated 14/ 03/2001 passed in E S I No 13/2000 by the Employees Insurance Court at Hubli, by which, order dated 14/02/1999 at Ex R-16 passed by the Corporation has been set aside, holding that the respondent herein is not liable to pay the contribution claimed in the said order.2. Heard arguments. It is submitted for the Corporation that the E I Court has committed an error in relying on the decision in the case of M/S. BRAITHWAITE AND COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED v. THE EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, : (1968)ILLJ550SC since according to it, the said decision does not hold the field now and, in view of the definition of the word 'wages' as it stands now and as per the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on the point, even the 'exgratia' payment made comes within the definition of the word 'wages' as defined under Section 2(22) of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On the other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1990(3)KarLJ363; (1999)IIILLJ246Kant
Ramachadriah, J.1. Petitioner was the complainant and respondents 1 to 3 were accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in C.S. No. 2010/1987 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore City, (for short 'the Special Court') C.C. No. 2010/1987 arose out of a private complaint filed by the petitioner Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') on November 30, 1987 alleging that the accused have violated the provisions of Sections 44 and 45(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') for which they are liable to be prosecuted for Commission of an offence under Clauses (f) and (g) of Section 5 of the Act for non-production of the documents mentioned against Sl. Nos. 1 to 8 of paragraph 7(b) of the complaint for scrutiny by the Inspector of the Corporation as called upon in the notices dated January 7, 1987, May 7, 1987 and August 20, 1987 issued to the accused after he vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ213Kant
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. The Mysore Kirloskar, Ltd., a public limited company the appellant, filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court, Hubli. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a public limited company, incorporated under the Mysore Companies Act, 1938, and an existing company within the meaning of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, and carries on business of manufacturing of machine tools and foundry products and sale of the same. The appellant-company has employed about 4,300 employees in its establishment and covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act and is making contributions in accordance with law and the provisions made thereunder.3. The appellant-management has voluntarily introduced an incentive scheme, reserving right to alter, modify, revise or withdraw the same. Accordingly, the company is paying incentive payment to the workmen of the company. In the year 1968, the respondent-Corporation informed...
Tag this Judgment!