Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2134; [1999(82)FLR985]; (1999)IILLJ1023All
O. P. Garg, J.1. The petitioner is the registered union of the employees of the Lohiya Machines Ltd.. C-10, site II, Panki Industrial Area. Kanpur and has come forward to espouse the cause of its members. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Government order dated 3.10.1997 rejecting the application of the petitioner, whereby exemption from the operation of the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was sought, has been challenged on a variety of grounds, inter alia , that the petitioner has not, at all. been given an opportunity of hearing and the order has been passed in a most cursory and perfunctory manner without recording any reasons.2. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that by notification No. G. S. R. 582 (E) dated 23rd December, 1996. Employee's State Insurance (Central) Rules. 1950 were amended by the Amendment Rules of 1996. to come into force w.e.f. 1st January, 1997...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR982]; (2009)IILLJ247All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The short question before the Court is whether the State Employees Insurance Corporation is liable to refund the amount in respect of the employees of the workshop U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.3. The Corporation has framed its service regulation known as U.P. State Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers) Service Regulation, 1981 which has come into force w.e.f. 19.6.1981. The Employees State Insurance Act 1948 is applicable to the workshops of the Corporation which come within the definition of Factory as defined by Section 2(12) of ESI Act. The Corporation has been divided into three wings -(a) Operational wing (which relates to plying of Corporation buses) (b) Administrative wing and (c) Workshops (for maintenance and repair of Corporation buses). The employees who are working in all the three wings are transferable from o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)ACC737
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Kanpur dated 9th November, 1987, passed in Appeal No. 141 of 1987.2. Abdul Rashid, an insured person, the employee of M/s. Elgin Mills No. II on or about 16th August, 1985 received employment injury in his left wrist. The Medical Board in its decision dated 15th July, 1985 found that there being no mark of injury on left wrist and palm and there being no restricted movement and there being no loss of earning capacity permanently, the employee concerned is not entitled for any award. This decision of the Medical Board was challenged by the employee, namely Abdul Rashid in the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court, wherein he has been awarded 15% loss of earning capacity permanently. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the present appeal is at the instance of Employees' State Insurance Corporation.3. Heard learned Counsel for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2009)IIILLJ494All
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. On oral prayer made by Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur as respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition.Necessary amendments will be made in the Writ Petition during the course of the day.2. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Recovery Notice dated September 10, 2008 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Recovery Officer/Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur (respondent No. 2).Further, prayer has also been made in the Writ Petition that the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner under the Kshamadan Swikriti Yojana (Apology Accepting Scheme) by re-calculating the assessment dated February 9, 2004 as per rate and amount of wages fixed by the Officer of the respondents in the lett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1969All88
Sahgal, J.1. At the last general election held on the 15th of February, 1967 there were eleven candidates for election to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Lucknow Cantonment Constituency No. 104. A declaration was made on the '23rd of February, 1967 of the result of the election and respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected. This petition has been filed by one of the candidates Balak Ram Vaish challenging that election with a prayer that the election of Badri Prasad Awasthi (respondent No. 1) be declared void and that the petitioner be declared elected as a member of the U. P. Legislative Assembly.2. Respondent No. 1 was an adjutant in the Home Guards Organisation and one of the grounds taken in the petition is that being an adjutant under the U. P. Home Guards Adhiniyam, 1963, (hereinafter to be described as the Adhiniyam), he held an office of profit within the meaning of that term under Article 191 of the Constitution and as such was disqualified for being chosen as, and for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1985All124
A. Banerji, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in this RA.F.O. Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 bars a claimant from claiming compensation both under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the M. V. Act) and under Section 3(i) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act). The point raised by the learned counsel is that the claimant is under no such bar where the claimant has different causes of action and the claim is made against two different persons under the aforesaid two acts. In other words, the contention is that the claimant is not to be precluded from making an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act where the owner of the vehicle is a person other than the employer of the victim involved in the accident. The argument is that since the compensation was not being claimed against the same person twice, but from two different persons, the bar of Section 110 AA of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ672All
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.2. Recovery of employers contribution under Section 45B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), is sought to be impugned by the petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The principal ground on which the recovery is assailed is that the factory run by the petitioners is a 'seasonal factory' within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act and as such the provisions of the Act shall not apply in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act.4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, ESIC Bhawan, Sarvodayaganj, Kanpur, the Respondent No. 2, it is asserted that the impugned recovery is in pursuance of the order dated September 1, 1984 passed under Section 45A of the Act determining the quant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC337
S.S. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials on record.2. It is said that no substantial question of law is involved. Even at the time of admission of the appeal on 24.9.1997, no such substantial question of law was drawn. In order to facilitate disposal of this appeal, it may be mentioned that it is admitted case of the parties that Mr. Asgar Abbas Rizvi was under employment (labour) of M/s. Elgin Mills, Kfanpur. In the course of his duty, on 26.3.1982 he sustained eye injury. He was referred to the Medical Board on 3.4.1991 who opined it to be the injuries on the left eye but the loss of earning capacity was considered to be nill. Against the decision of the Medical Board, Appeal No. 117 of 1991 was preferred before the learned Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur. It was on the basis of admitted case of the parties with regard to sustaining of the injuries and also on the basis of evidence adduced the Court adjudicated 30% lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(4)AWC3205; (2003)3UPLBEC2582
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Petition has been filed by Smt. Urmila Devi daughter-in-law of deceased Kishun Lal, who died in-harness on 21.4.1999. The deceased Kishun Lal was employed and discharging his duties as Painter in the Electricity Transmission Division-11, U.P. Power Corporation, Allahabad at the time of his death. The necessary facts which bear on the controversy involved in the present petition are that Anil Kumar husband of the petitioner predeceased his father late Sri Kishun Lal and he was survived by the petitioner and two children, i.e., one son and one daughter. In the wake of the death of Anil Kumar, his family consisting of wife and two children was sustaining on the earning of late Kishun Lal. Consequent upon the death of Kishun Lal, the petitioner who happened to be his daughter-in-law, applied for compassionate appointment which according to the petitioner was declined by means of order dated 22.4.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 on the premises that she did not fall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR786]; (2007)IIILLJ75All
Amitava Lala, J.1. Since only question of law is involved, by agreement of the parties the appeal is heard on the informal papers. However, for the sake of formality affidavits are exchanged.2. This is an appeal arising out of order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) sitting as a Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court. By the impugned order, the application of the appellants for waiver/reduction of the amount of mandatory deposit of 50% of the amount due has been rejected. The amount due was Rs. 4,72,560/- for the period from 04th October, 1994 to December, 1996 with interest and further interest of Rs. 59.84 paise per day with effect from 11th April, 2006 till the date of payment. It has only deposited Rs. 13,307/- vide appropriate bank challan dated 17th August, 1999.3. An appeal shall lie under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). To understand the scope and ambit of Section 82 of...
Tag this Judgment!