Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1879; (1993)ILLJ31Kant
Venkatachala, J.1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), by the Branch Office of Reunion Engineering Company Ltd., at Premises Nos. 106 & 107, Midford House No. 1, Midford Gardens, Bangalore, questioning the correctness of the order dated 28-11-1991 made in E.S.I. Application No. 77/87 by the Employees' Insurance Court at Bangalore (for short 'the Insurance Court') by which it (the Branch Office of Reunion Engineering Company Ltd.) is held to be a shop, that is, an establishment, to which the provisions of the Act are extended by Government of Karnataka, Notification No. SWL 371 LSI 87 dated 5-1-1985 issued under Sub-section (5) of Section 1 thereof (for short 'the Notification'). 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass -By its letter dated 31-1-1985, Karnataka Regional Office of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation at Bangalore (for short 'the Corporation') sought to obtain information from the Branch Office of the R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR4364
ORDERS. Mohan, C.J. 1. The following three questions have been referred by the Division Bench for our opinion:-'(1) Whether the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are applicable to a case where the Corporation seeks to recover contributions for a period prior to the issuance of the notice calling upon the employer to register its institution and cover its employees with effect from an anterior date?(2) Whether the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are applicable to a case where the principal employer has failed to cover his employees and the Corporation had not extended any benefits or rendered any service to the employees for the period prior to the issuance of the notice calling upon the employer to cover its employees?(3) Whether the E.S.I. Corporation can demand payment of contribution without notifying the facilities available for the employees to the employer?' 2. The appellant -- Karnataka Food Packers -- has preferred this appeal against the order dated 29-5-1982 passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3595
Venkatachaliah, J.1. In this appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, ('Act') Escorts Ltd., the appellant, assails the order dated 23-9-1985 made in E.S.I, Application No. 13 of 1984 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court, Bangalore, ('ESI Court' for short).Appellant initiated the proceedings before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the 'Act' questioning the determination made under Section 45A of the 'Act' demanding E.S.I. contributions from the appellant as 'Principal-employer' in respect of certain workmen employed by appellant's contractors engaged for the construction of appellant's factory-buildings.2. The material facts are these :Appellant has a factory at Yelahanka engaged in the manufacture of 'Pistons'. The said project was taken-up pursuant to a project report prepared in or about the year 1974. The execution of the civil works of the factory buildings and of their sanitary and electrical installations was entrusted to three separate Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant42; AIR1952Mys42
Venkataramaiya, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the 1st and 2nd accused respectively against their convictions in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 6 of 1950-51. Accused 1 was charged with committing offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948, for having received on the night of 13th October 1948 from one Sanjivappa Rs. 400/- as illegal gratification in order to show favour to him in four cases pending before him (1st Accused) as House Rent Controller. The 2nd accused was charged with the abetment of the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty and sentenced Accused 1 to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the said offences with a direction that the sentences do run concurrently. As regards the 2nd accused he ordered under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal procedure that he should be released on bail on his executing a bond in a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1787
ORDERBopanna, J.42. On the pleadings of the parties and the competing contentions of their Learned Counsel, the following general points arise for consideration in these batches of petitions :(1) Did the draft notifications dated 30-7-1981 containing the proposals of the Government for revising/fixing the minimum wages and published in the Government Gazette dated 6-8-1981, comply with the requirements of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act If not, are those notifications bad in law and vitiate the final notifications impugned in these proceedings ?(2) Was there a consideration by the Government of all the representations against the proposals for fixation/revision of minimum wages as required under Section 5(2) of the Act ?(3) If there was no consideration of those representations, what is the effect of such non-consideration ?(4) Was there any consultation between the Government and the Board as required under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act (in short 'the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR608; 2004(7)KarLJ677
ORDERN. Kumar, J 1. In all the above Writ Petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their lands by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of Visweshwaraiah Layout. As common questions of law and facts do arise for consideration in all these Writ Petitions, they are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in all these petitions could be broadly classified as under:-(a) The owners of lands who are either cultivating the land personally or who have put up constructions on the said lands and using them either for residential purposes, non-residential purposes or industrial purposes.(b) The owners of sites; (i) Who have purchased sites in agricultural lands.(ii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are not approved and formed in agricultural lands.(iii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are formed after conversion and after obtaining the necessary permission/sanction from the local authorities.(iv) Who have purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR166]; 2008(5)KarLJ172; (2008)IIILLJ875Kant; 2008(5)KLJ172; 2008(2)KCCRSN169; 2008(4)AIRKarR60; 2008LabIC(NOC)928(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1-1-2005 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court at Hubli, in ESI Application No. 16 of 2004 with a prayer to dismiss the said application insofar as it affected the appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent establishment is covered under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and is paying contribution of all the eligible employees. The respondent establishment failed to make payment of contribution in respect of wages paid to the employees for the work done on holidays and on second Saturday and on that basis recovery proceedings were initiated by the appellants, which has been challenged by the respondent before the ESI Court in ESI Application No. 26 of 2000 which came to be allowed by an order dated 24-2-2001. The appellants being aggrieved challenged the said order before this Court, in M.F.A. No. 2242 of 2001 before this Court, which came to be allowed by an order date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1164; 1991(1)KarLJ302
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. The Dandeli Ferro Alloys Private Limited is one among three electro-metallurgical industrial undertakings producing Ferro Alloys in the State of Karnataka, the other two being Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Limited (VISL) and Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited (SMIORE). The Karnataka Electricity Board and VISL on the one hand and the Board and SMIORE on the other had entered into Special Agreements for the supply of electrical power and under the agreements the two industrial undertakings enjoyed the benefit of special tariff of 5.05 ps. per KWH which was subject to revision once in 5 years in accordance with the prescribed formula. It is asserted that the petitioner being similarly situate, represented to the State Government and not to the Board against the inequitable power tariff made applicable to the petitioner in contrast with the other two industrial undertakings and pleaded for fair treatment instead of discrimination. It is also stated that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ482
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. In view of the conflicting judgments and variance of directions issued by various Benches of this Court while interpreting constitutionality, legality and scope of Karnataka Electricity Board's (for short, 'Board') order dated 25th February, 1995 and the Circular No. CI-255-MGS 96, dated 4-10-1996 of the State Government, the learned Single Judge has referred all these petitions to the Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. In his order of reference, the learned Judge has formulated the following questions of public importance requiring determination for grant or refusal of the relief to the writ petitioners:(i) Does a citizen have any fundamental or other right to draw subsoil water for irrigation, business or drinking purpose and in particular is any such right a part of the right to life or livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution; (ii) In the absence of any statutory provision on the subject can an Executive Order regulate the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2006(108)FLR632]; ILR2005KAR6001; 2006(1)KarLJ365
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. My heart bleeds for the Child Labour in terms of the facts of this case.Petitioner is running a motor cycle shop in the name and style of Best Service Centre. Second respondent visited the shop of the petitioner and inspected the same on 18-7-2003. He reported that petitioner has employed child labour. He registered a case alleging contravention of Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 alleging that petitioner has employed Child Labour called Khaza-m-Shekh aged about 11 years. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner' as to why compensation should not be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue. Thereafter a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application seeking for permission to cross-examine with regard to the report, which was allowed. Petitioner filed his written arguments. First respondent thereafter has chosen to pass the an order imposing Rs. 20,000/ as compensation to be deposited t...
Tag this Judgment!