Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2526; [2005(104)FLR6]; (2004)2UPLBEC1969
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Rama Kant Dwivedi seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the award dated 26th February, 1998, passed by the Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P., Allahabad, respondent No. 1, said to have been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28th August, 1998, filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, and other consequential reliefs.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Stenographer in the establishment of the G.E.C. Alsthom India Limited, Naini, Allahabad, respondent No. 2, on 22nd March, 1992. His services came to be terminated vide letter dated 9th May, 1995, with effect from 13th May, 1995. According to him, one Arshad Ali was appointed as a Welder (Trainee) by the respondent No. 2 whose services wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2039
O.P. Garg, J. 1. The petitioner,which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur, is undoubtedly covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Act'). Earlier the employees, whose salary ranged in between Rs. 3,001 and Rs. 6,500 were not covered by the provisions of the Act. The State Insurance (Central) Second Amendment Act was published under G.S.R. 582 (E) dated 23.12.1996 whereby the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 were amended. The effect of this amendment/notification was that the employees who were drawing wages/salary ranging between Rs. 3,001 to Rs. 6.500 also came within the ambit of the said insurance scheme, as contemplated under the Act. The affected employees who were being paid 8.33% of their basic salary towards medical benefits in cash every month from the employer did not want to be covered by the amended provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All410; [1964(9)FLR345]; (1965)ILLJ1All
Oak, J.1. The question of law referred to us is :'Whether Rule 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1952 is ultra vires of the rule-making power of the State?'2. This reference arises out of a proceeding under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Act). Employees State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur filed an application against a firm Messrs A. K. Brothers under Section 75(2) of the Act for the recovery of a certain sum as contribution under the Act. The firm raised various pleas in defence. One of the points raised by the firm was that, the application by the Corporation was barred by time. This plea was overruled by the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur. That Court passed in favour of the Corporation-applicant a decree for a certain sum.3. Against that decree, an appeal has been filed before this Court. When the appeal was taken up by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellant relied upon K. 17 framed by the State Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2050; [2005(105)FLR1028]; (2005)IIILLJ116All
R.P. Misra and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Unit of the petitioner Union' looking after the welfare of the Employees of the Hotel Agra, Ashok Agra, praying for Mandamus commanding the respondents not to implement the notification dated 23.12.1996 as well as the other (notifications issued in this regard, under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder, primarily on the ground that the Employees of the petitioner's union are enjoying comparatively more advantageous benefit than under 1978 Rules made applicable to the petitioner by the respondent employer and that the applicability of the E.S.I. Act and the notifications made thereunder would seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioner.2. We have heard Sri V.K. Upadhyay, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. who has also appeared for the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR184]; (1995)IILLJ122All; (1995)1UPLBEC110
S.R. Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short the Act) is directed against the order dated July 4,1980 passed under Section 75 of the Act by the City Magistrate/Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Allahabad in case No. 2 of 1980, Scientific Instrument Company v. Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr. 2. The application under Section 75 of the Act was moved by the Scientific Instrument Company Ltd. Allahabad, a public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, which, it is alleged, mainly carries on the business of selling and distributing Scientific instruments of Foreign and Indian Manufacturers. It is alleged that though its registered head office is situated at 6 T.B. Sapru Marg, Allahabad, the company has its branch sales office at Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras as well as in Allahabad itself and its employees in the above mentioned branch sales offices are mainly and p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1547
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions and they are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 36892 of 2004 is treated as leading case.2. Writ petition No. 36892 of 20044 has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the respondent No. 1- Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Kanpur and notice dated 29.12.2003 for payment of gratuity under Rule 17 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules issued by the Controlling authority/the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Allahabad- respondent No. 2.BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited is a multi-unit Public Sector Undertaking. Of its 5 units, one is situate at Gorakhpur. An advertisement No. 35/89 was published in newspaper by the petitioners- the Fertilizer Corporatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC157; 2007ACJ280; 2006(4)AWC3329; [2006(110)FLR322]; (2006)IIILLJ595All; [2007]1SCL317(All)
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. The respondent who is an employee in a factory, suffered injury in his right ear and was referred by the Corporation to the Medical Board for Medical Examination for determination of his disablement as postulated in Section 54A of the 'Employees State Insurance Act, 1948' (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act') read with Regulation- 72 of the year 1950 under the Act.2. The Medical Board in its report dated 20.2.1992 noted that the test does not reveal Hearing Loss and there was no disablement injury, and, therefore, the employee was not entitled to any disablement benefit. The employee then went before the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur. He did not file an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Medical Board because he had the option to go straight to the court by Virtue of the provisions as contained in Clause-II Sub-section 2 of Section 54A of the Act. The provision is as follows:(2) If the insured person or the Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR1090]; 2009AIRSCW5490
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Petitioner, running a petrol pump (public retail outlet) for dispensing petrol/diesel has challenged an order dated October 17, 2002 issued by Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Kanpur directing petitioner to make contribution under the Act from August, 1993 to May, 2000 and interest on the aforesaid amount failing which recovery shall be issued under Sections 45C and 45G of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.2. It was admitted by the counsel for petitioners that an Employees' State Insurance Court has been established under Section 75 of the Act at Etawah to decide any question or dispute, for the matters provided under Section 75, but since the issue relates to applicability of the Act, it was prayed that the matter be considered by this Court in the light of the decisions rendered by different High Courts.3. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V.D. Chauhan for petitioner and Sri A.K. Srivasta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1995)ILLJ703All; (1994)3UPLBEC2007
Om Prakash J.1. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited and its six textile undertakings, are engaged in the manufacture and production of different varieties of cloth and yarn. The management of the said textile undertakings was taken over by the Central Government under the Notification dated April 13, 1978 under Section 18AA of the industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 came to be passed in 1986 (for short, the Act of 1986). Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act 1986, states that on the appointed day every textile undertaking and the right, title and interest of the Company in relation to every such textile undertaking shall, by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to and shall vest in the Central Government. Subsection (2) of Section 3 declares that every such textile undertaking which stands vested in the Central Government by virtue of Sub-section (1) shall, immediately afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR947]; (2000)IIILLJ597All
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Mr. Tarun Agrawal, learned Advocate has while supporting the writ petition assailed the impugned order contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition on the ground that the same is not an assessment order under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Even if for argument sake the impugned order is said to be an assessment order in that event it was passed in contradiction to the proviso to Section 45A namely without any opportunity of being heard, therefore, the same is invalid. He contends further that no demand could be made in respect of a period of five years prior to the date of the claim as provided in the proviso to Sub-section (1-A) of Section 77 of the Act, therefore, in the present case the claim having been made in the year 1986 for the period between 1971 to 1983 could not be sustained so far as period prior to 1981 which is beyond five years of 1986. His other contention is that respondents did not take...
Tag this Judgment!