Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR1692
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the Regional Director, Employee's State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.) is directed against the order dated 24-10-1980 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Bangalore in E.S.I. Application No. 25/72, on its file.2. F. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd., approached the E.S.I. Court with an application presented on 6-12-1972 fordeclaration that their erstwhile establishment was not covered by the E.S.I. Act; that a sum of Rs. 97,819 37 as alleged did not constitute wages within the meaning of E.S.I. Act, 1948 and as such no E.S.I, contribution was payable by theapplicant to the Respondent, namely, the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore on the said sum. Hence, the applicant prayed that the demand made by the Respondent for payment of E.S.I, contribution on the said sum should be set aside.3. The E.S.I. Corporation by its letter No. MYS INS.I. 53-1156-19 dated 26-10-1972 called upon the applicant to pay Employer's Special Contribution and Employees'Contribution Rs.97...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant156; AIR1968Mys156
Chandrashekher, J. (1) The petitioners are owners of residential hotels and eating houses. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution they have challenged the validity of the Notification dated 1-6-1967 (Published in Mysore Gazette dated 8-6-1967) issued by the Govt. of Mysore under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages for different classes of employees in residential hotels and eating houses.(2) At the outset, it is useful to narrate briefly the history of the minimum wage legislation and of fixation of minimum wages in hotel industry.(3) The Minimum Wages Fixing Machinery Convention was held at Geneva in the year (1928). The resolutions of that Convention are embodied in Articles 223 to 228 of the International Labour Code. The object of these resolutions, as stated in Article 224 was to fix minimum wages in industries 'in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulations of wages by collective agreements or otherwise, and wages are excepti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1994(4)KarLJ452; (1995)IILLJ399Kant
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.1. These three petitions involve near identical questions of law and fact and are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A few facts necessary for me disposal of these cases may be stated first:The Chief Engineer (General) of the respondent-Board by his order dated May 15, 1985 submitted a proposal to the Board that Three hundred and forty four posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) be upgraded as Assistant Ex.Engineers. This proposal was made in pursuance of a representation received by Board from the K.E.B.Engineers Association, suggesting such an upgradation, to remove stagnation faced by Assistant Engineers (Electrical) who had been working as such for 10 years or more. It was pointed out by the Chief Engineer that the proposed upgradation will not involve any additional financial burden for the Board because all those incumbents of the posts recommended for upgradation had been given the next higher grade (in time scale scheme) which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001(89)FLR1101]; ILR2001KAR2272; (2001)IILLJ22Kant
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. This appeal is by the Employees' Union which made the application before the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bangalore, under Section 75(1)(g) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The case of the Union is that the employees who draw salary more than the ceiling limit as on the date of commencement of the contribution period are not liable to pay any contribution even if their salary were to come below the ceiling limits during the currency of that contribution period. The E.S.I. Court dismissed the application filed by the Union holding that the interpretation given by the Deputy Director, E.S.I. Corporation by letter dated July 3, 1998 is correct.3. Sri B.V. Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Section 2(9)(iii)(b) provides that an employee whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed such wages as may be prescribed by the Central Government a month at any time after and not before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1965)IILLJ26Kant
Hegde, J. 1. These are applications under Art. 227 of the Constitution. They arise from the decision of the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Bijapur, in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 on his file. The said learned magistrate was constituted as the 'authority' under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act to hear and decide all claims arising under Ss. 12 and 14 of the Act in the district of Bijapur. He will be hereinafter referred to as the 'authority.' 2. Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 were disposed of by one common order. That order was assailed on various grounds which will be set out presently. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case material for our present purpose are these. The respondents are borne on the staff of the Bijapur Municipal Borough. They work in the octroi department of that borough. They claimed overtime allowance under the provisions of the Act from 1 April, 1955 to 31 March, 1958. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR396(Kar); 2006(2)KarLJ550
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment rendered in a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). The appeal is by the defendant in the suit.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to by their rank in the suit.3. The facts of the case are as follows.-The defendant had invited tenders in respect of certain civil construction works. The plaintiff was the successful tenderer and was awarded the contract in terms of an agreement dated 17-11-1986. The works were duly completed in May 1988. A final bill was prepared and furnished to the respondent on 2-3-1989. The plaintiff found major discrepancies in the bill and in this regard wrote to the defendant by letters, dated 1-5-1989 and 18-5-1989 calling upon it to re-examine the same and make payment. There was no response and it is in this circumstance, legal notice was issued and was followed up with a suit on the ground that the agreement betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant158; AIR1954Mys158; (1957)ILLJ285Kant
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The petitioner has made an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for the issue of a proper direction, order or writ to the respondents declaring that his appointment by respondent 2 to the post of Electrical Supervisor in the Department of Power Engineering of respondent 1 never ceased, that he is still an occupant of the post entitled to hold and function in the same without any obstruction from the respondents, and requiring respondents 2 and 3 to restore and admit him to the post and let him work therein without any let or hindrance. Respondent 1 is the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, respondent 2 the Council of the Indian Institute of Science, respondent 3 the Director and respondent 4 the Registrar of that Institute.2. The facts relevant to this case are practically undisputed and are set out in para 8 of the petition. On 7-5-1953, it appears that the then Director in charge while checking a statement presented by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2007]136CompCas744(Kar); [2007(114)FLR519]; 2007(3)KarLJ198; (2007)IIILLJ142Kant
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The question that is involved in this appeal is whether 'Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd.', a public limited company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is a 'shop' coming within the purview of Section 1(4) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), or under any notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Act, including the Government notification dated 9.1.1987.2. The E.S.I. Court answered the said question in the negative giving rise to this appeal by the E.S.I. Corporation.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the respondent-company comes within the expression 'shop' and, as such, the provisions of the Act become applicable by virtue of Section 1(5) of the Act. It is contended that the E.S.I. Court failed to property appreciate the law bearing on the point with regard to the meaning of the word 'shop' as well as with regard to the scope of the Act....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1987)ILLJ407Kant
ORDER1. The Food Corporation of India Loading and Unloading Workers Union (in short the Union) representing the workmen employed by Respondent-2, Labour Contractor of Respondent-1/Food Corporation of India (in short the Corporation) in retrenching 450 workmen who have been working continuously and rendering services to the Corporation for several years in its various Godowns and Railheads in Bangalore District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and discriminatory being opposed to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Article 14 of the Constitution and for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Corporation not to retrench the aforesaid workers without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25(N) and (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the I.D. Act) and for other incidental reliefs. 2. When this petition came up for preliminary hearing I made an interim order on 13th March, 1986 directing the 3rd respondent, Labour Contractor, to provide for the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2002)IILLJ1068Kant
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation under the provisions of Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), directed against the order dated September 23, 1998, passed by the E.I. Court, Bangalore, in ESI Application No. 108 of 1989, being aggrieved by the allowing of the said application whereby the E.I. Court had set aside the order of the appellant-Corporation calling upon the respondent to implement the various provisions of the Act in respect of employees in its office at Bangalore and various branches outside Bangalore and demanding contributions under the Act. 2. The endeavour of the appellant-Corporation is to cover the employees of the respondent-Karnataka State Seeds Corporation under the provisions of the Act so that the benefits flowing under the provisions of the Act endure to the employees of the respondent-Corporation whereas the respondent-Corporation appears to be quite averse to t...
Tag this Judgment!