Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-02-1985
Reported in : AIR1986P& H119
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. Doubt as to the correctness of law laid down by the Division Bench in M.P. Bansal v. District Employment Officer (Civil Revision No. 2262 of 1981) decided on Mar. 16. 1985, reported in AIR 1985 Punj & Har 251, entertained by a Division Bench, led to the reference to Full Bench of three Civil Revision Petitioners, namely, No. 1108 of 1983 at the instance of the Division Bench itself and Nos. 2202 of 1982 and 3063 of 1984 by J. V. Gupta, J. in the wake of the said earlier reference order by the Division Bench.2. Before the examination of the relevant legal queries that arise in regard to the law laid down in Bansal's case (AIR 1985 Punj & Har 251) a brief resume of the facts of the three revision petitioners would help in viewing the said legal queries in proper perspective.3. In Civil Revision No. 1108 of 1983, Shri Hari Mittal, Advocate, tenant-pet, had taken on rent House NO. 1278, sector 18-C, Chandigarh, on 21-11-1969, at a time when he was employed as a District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-22-1985
Reported in : AIR1985SC758; (1985)2CompLJ65(SC); [1985(50)FLR320]; 1985(1)SCALE301; (1985)2SCC134; [1985]2SCR958; 1985(1)SLJ307(SC); 1985(17)LC666(SC)
O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The first respondent is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar and employing over 1100 workers, 300 of them on a permanent basis and 800 on a seasonal basis. The permanent employees are those employed on the clerical side and in the operation and maintenance of machines. The other 800 employees are seasonal employees who are so employed because the factory itself does not work through out the year but works during a certain season every year from December when the sugarcane crop is ready for crushing until the crushing is over. The employer refused to pay bonus to the seasonal employees during the year 1964-65 on the ground that they were not employed through out the year. A dispute arose between the management and the Mazdoor Sangh which was referred to the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh, Indore for arbitration under Section 49 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act. The Industrial Court decided in favour of the workers, but on a writ petition f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-13-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Kant21; ILR1985KAR2477
Puttaswamy, J. 1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases have been posted before us for disposal.2. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. All the petitioners hold licences called 'Touring Cinema Licences' issued in their favour by the concerned District Magistrates of the Districts ('DMs') presently under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) ('the Act') and the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 ('the Rules') for exhibiting films at the places detailed in their respective licences. The licences have been re-granted from time to time and were due for re-grant sometime before 3-5-1984 or immediately thereafter as is the case.4. After a series of amendments to the Rules, their periodical and endless challenges before this Court, which so far regretfully ended up only in abortive results, to which aspect I will have occasion to refer to it in so...
Tag this Judgment!