Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
..... employer can be penalized by a penalty to the tune of 50% of the amount of award u/s 4a(3) workmen compensation act, 1923.3. on the factual scenario when the dog bite two people including the deceased employee, the deceased employee did not take any diligent precaution which resulted in his death while the other persons took precaution and is ..... the penalty up to the extent of 50% as enumerated under section 4-a of the workmen compensation act.2. this court by an order dated18.12.2009 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-"1. whether the employee's death due to dog bite can be termed as arising out of and in the course of ..... employment and if not, whether the employer can be forced to pay compensation? 2. whether in absence of the notice u/ s. 10 of the workmen compensation act, 1923 from the claimant/claimants the non- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
..... . whether the action of the mines manager, koteshwar lime stone mines of steel authority of india ltd. in denying terminal benefit of gratuity,retrenchment, compensation and exgratia applicable to vrs seeking employees is fair and justified. if not, to what relief these workers/heirs are entitled to iii. whether the action of the management of the mines ..... and prevented from doing their duties.4. all the workers have completed 240 days service in a calendar year. they claimed reinstatement with full back wages, interest and compensation along with other reliefs. action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice. during pendency of the disputes, several workers died. it is also submitted that 2040 ..... 52(5) of the mines act deals with the annual leave wages of 15 days to be granted by the manager of the mine. such leave used to be granted to the contract workers by the mines manager under the aforesaid rule. under rule 29(a),(b),(c) and (d) the employee's medical examination has to be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
..... -4 and p/x-5 to the affidavit of the petitioner dated 21.6.2005.17. it has further been contended that acceptance of compensation for land under the land acquisition act or acceptance of amount under special rehabilitation grant does not constitute any waiver on the part of land oustees for claiming land which is stipulated ..... and resettlement policy of oustees of different dams in narmada valley. in this context, reliance has been placed on decision of supreme court in bandhua mukti morcha's case air 1984 sc 802. it has also been submitted that writ petition does not suffer from delay and latches, as the petitioner is not seeking stoppage ..... judgment of supreme court in narmada bachao andolan v. union of india & ors. (2005) 4 scc 32 (hereinafter referred to as the second narmada bachao andolan's case). it has further been submitted that rehabilitation of project affected families should be done before six months of submergence. for this proposition, she has placed reliance on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
..... in air pollution and, therefore, environmental clearance is required to be obtained. while referring to section 25 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974, it has been contended that consent is mandatory before undertaking mining operations in respect of sand and 'bajri'.16. shri sushrut. dharmadhikari, learned counsel ..... ' no mining activity is involved. it has further been contended that in exercise of powers under section 18 of mines and minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 the central government has framed mineral conservation and development rules, 1988. chapter v of the said rules deals with environment clearance which contains rules 31 ..... act, 1986. we are fortified in our view by the decision of the supreme court in ksl and industries ltd. v. arihant threads ltd., (2008) 9 scc 763 wherein the supreme court has held that where there are two special statutes which contain non-obstante clauses, later statute mus prevail. besides that, if the petitioner's .....
Tag this Judgment!