Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3563; 2005(3)ESC2209
1. The petitioner who was elected to the office of Adhyaksha (Chair person), Zila Panchayat, Allahabad in the elections held in November, 2000, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 30th July, 2005 (Annex. 15) passed by the respondent State Government removing the petitioner from her office on the basis of alleged charges which the State Government contends to have been proved against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called the '1961 Act') read with The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter called the 1997 Rules'). Haunted and hotly pursued by her rival political opponents, the petitioner contends that the impugned order is a result of political motivation and is a complete mala fide exercise of power in violation of the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. The writ petitioners have approached this Court in respect of the order dated 05.04.2010, whereby respondent no.1 had directed the petitioners to submit the list of officers/employees and the further reminder dated 17.04.2010, whereby the petitioners were informed that failing which action would be taken under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948. It is the case of the writ petitioners that in response to these letters, on 26.04.2010, a reply was given by the Regional Officer stating that the Life Insurance Corporation of India is a Central Corporation created by an Act of Parliament and does not fall under the definition of Local Authority in the State. The further stand was that the Corporation is engaged in commercial services involving vital public services and deployment of their officers/employees for census will gravely hamper the business. The writ petitioners have further stated that without taking into consideration their reply and without application of mind, a directio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EC Act') has been filed against the judgment and award dated 22.09.2010 passed by Workman Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in WCP No.33 of 2008, whereby the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.3,98,800/- to the claimant Smt. Asha Pachauri on account of death of his son Praveen Pachauri, who died in a mother accident occurred on 18.08.2008 at about 5:30 a.m., when the deceased was driving auto rickshaw under the employment of respondent no.2 Neeraj Pachauri, the bother of the deceased. The brief facts for deciding this first appeal from order are that respondent no.2 Neeraj Pachauri owned an auto rickshaw having Registration No.UP 32-BN 7074. According to him, the auto rickshaw was driven by him in day time and the same was given to the deceased to be driven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(4)AWC2961
Rajes Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 4.5.2001, passed by Commissioner under the Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarnagar in W.C.A. No. 38 of 2000, Chandan v. Ganga Kissan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Muzaffarnagar. 2. By the aforesaid order, Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 32,128. It has been observed that a sum of Rs. 3,000 had already been paid by the Insurance Company and balance amount of Rs. 29,128 was payable and on non-payment of amount within due date, interest @ 9% was chargeable. 3. The third proviso to Section 30 requires that no appeal by an employer under Clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a Certificate by Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. Section 30 reads as follows : ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ5All; (1993)1UPLBEC15
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Electrician by the respondent No. 3 on May 23, 1990 on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 54 per day. Petitioner further claims that he was continued to work as Electrician on the above basis till July 31, 1992, on which date his services were terminated. He has accordingly filed this writ petition for quashing the order of termination of his services for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his services and absorb him in the department on regular basis and pay him the salary equivalent to the salary of regular employees.2. In support of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions, viz., (i) the petitioner falls within the definition of workman and has completed service of 240 days and as such he is entitled to be regularised by the respondents; (ii) in any case, the petitioner has worked on daily wage basis for about two years and in pursuance of the Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ8All
Varma, J.1. The petitioners arc assailing the legality of certain orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kanpur, purporting to determine moneys stated to be due from the petitioners under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The amounts which have been determined payable by the petitioners are claimed to be due for the period August 1975 onwards.2. Shortly stated, the petitioners' case is that they were carrying on the business of manufacturing glass bottles of different shapes and sizes at their factory situate at Naini, district Allahabad. A number of workmen were employed in that establishment which was governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, the Employees' Insurance Act and the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. For reasons beyond their control the petitioners were compelled to close down their factory in March, 1975. Thereafter the petitioners gave a notice of closure under S.25-FFA of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1976CriLJ868
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order of the Sessions Judge by which he dismissed the applicants' revision.2. A complaint was filed against the applicants for an offence under Section 409 I- P.C. The allegations were that the accused being the employers had deducted from the wages of the complainant and the other workmen the amount which they were liable to contribute under the Employees' Provident Funds Act but had not deposited the same as required by law. It was alleged that the accused had misappropriated this amount and were accordingly liable to be punished for an offence under Section 409 I. P.C.3. The accused in the case filed as application praying that the prosecution be not continued as the same was barred by Section 403 Criminal P. C and also by the absence of sanction contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. The contention of the accused was that on their committing default in making the deposit of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998ACJ721; AIR1998All1; (1997)2UPLBEC1344
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard Shri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Garg for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 26-8-1996, Annexure 6 to the writ petition passed by the Collector under Section 7(1) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ' 1991 Act').3. The Facts of the caseThe facts of the caste are that the respondent No. 1 and 3 arc the father and mother of one late Anil Gurang. They filed a claim petition on 10-7-1995 under Section 6(1) of the 1991 Act before the Collector. True copy of the application is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In this application it has been alleged that the applicants are the parents and legal representatives of late Anil Gurang who was unmarried and employed in Hilton Hotel, Dehradun. Anil Gurang used to financially support his parents from his income. On 16-10-1994 Anil Gurang had gone for a wedding, and while going in the wedding pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1735; [2006(109)FLR615]; (2006)IIILLJ33All
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by an Hon'ble single Judge on the 7th of March, 2006. 2. The brief facts are that on or about the 6th of January this year, an assessment order was passed under Section 45A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. The amount of contribution was a little above Rs. 80 lac. The amount of interest at the rate of 12% under Section 39, Sub-section 5 (a) came to a little under Rs. 50 lac and as such the total amount was about Rs. 1.31 crore. 3. The assessment was not in respect of ordinary employer's contribution but was made notionally on labour value of 25% in respect of certain repair and other works done on the writ petitioner's factory machinery. 4. On the 6th of February, 2006, a notice was served upon the respondent-writ petitioner for payment of the total amount. The notice mentioned a period of 15 days as the period allowed for payment. 5. On the 21st of February, 2006, the accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : II(1990)ACC396
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This is an appeal by the Slate of U.P. challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in which one of the employee of the State itself was killed in a motor accident. It is alleged that on 30th May, 86 the deceased Bishan Singh forester, along with some official of the department was deputed on official duty and in that connection they were travelling in a departmental Jeep No. UPH 6471. When the jeep reached unmanned Railway Crossing at Indra Nagar, Haldwani it dashed against a running train as a result of which Bishan Singh, forester died. The widow, son and the daughter of the said deceased filed claim petition under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming a sum of rupees two lakhs by way of compensation.2. The State of U.P. contested the petition and it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. The State also disputed the amount of compensation claimed as being excessive. It was alleged that the f...
Tag this Judgment!