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 : [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 : [2008(117)FLR521]
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from the order dated 10th January, 2008 passed by concerned Civil Judge, which is the 'Court' as per The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. There is a provision of appeal under Section 82 of the said Act which is as follows:82. Appeal- (1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court,(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law.(3) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.(4) The provisions of Sections 5 and 12 of the (Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)), shall apply to appeals under this section.2. From the plain reading of the provision it appears to us that the appeal shall lie to the High Court if it involves any substantial question of law. According to the appellant, the substantial question of law is that the cooperative society is not lia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR230]; (2008)IILLJ65All
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heared Sri Gopal Misra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Pandey, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel.2. With the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of the issues raised in the writ petition, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself, without inviting counter affidavit.3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari, quashing the notice dated 25.7.2007, issued by the Deputy Director/Recovery Officer asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner be not committed to the civil prison in execution of the certificate for recovery. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for commanding the respondent No. 2 not to take any coercive measure in relation of the impugned notice and further directing the respondents No. 3 and 4 not to harass the petitioner on the basis of the impugned notice.4. Brie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1676; [2007(115)FLR959]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff was working as a cashier and committed a misconduct on account of which a chargesheet was issued on the basis of which a domestic enquiry was initiated in which the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved against the plaintiff. Based on the said report, a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, an order dated 25.3.1970 was passed for the removal of the plaintiff from the service of the Corporation. It transpires that the appellate authority also affirmed the order of removal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration praying that a decree for declaration be issued holding that the order of the removal passed by the Regional Director, as affirmed by the appellate order, was illegal and malafide and that the plaintiff continued to be in the service with full back wages. The plaintiff in the alternative also prayed for a decree for damages for wrongful removal from the services. The defendant resisted the suit a...
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!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC1020
Shiv Shanker, J.1. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6742 of 2006 (Suresh Kumar Modi v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6950 of 2006 (Mr. Amit Modi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) have been filed regarding one criminal case, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. In both the writ petitions it has been prayed that issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the F.I.R.) dated 10th May, 2006 lodged against the petitioner/s at Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad as Case Crime No. 166 of 2006, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C.2. Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Udai Chandani and Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner's and learned A.G.A. as well as the Sri Brijesh Sahai and Sri B.C. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and peru...
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 : 2007(1)AWC252; (2007)ILLJ45All
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. Respondent-worker Mohd. Asfaq at Kanpur sustained an employment injury in his left hand on 10.7.1978. He was referred under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 to the Medical Board for determination of his disablement, in consequence thereof the Medical Board after examining him found 3% permanent loss of his earning capacity awardable to the worker. The said loss was calculated at Rs. 2066.25 which the relevant office of the Corporation paid to respondent-worker as loss of his earning capacity after sending the respondent-worker a letter of information dated 7.10.1980.2. The respondent-worker, thereafter, preferred an appeal No. 81 of 1980 (Mohd. Asfaq v. E.S.I. Corporation) under Section 54A of the afore noted Act on 23.10.1980 before the Employees' Insurance Court, Kanpur, which the judge allowed partly and thereby modified the decision of the Medical Board to the extent that the worker Mohd. Asfaq will be awarded 5% loss of his earning c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)ACC584; [2006(110)FLR1210]
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. Respondent-worker Mohd. Asfaq at Kanpur sustained an employment injury in his left hand on 10.7.1978. He was referred under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 to the Medical Board for determination of his disablement, in consequence thereof the Medical Board after examining him found 3% permanent loss of his earning capacity awardable to the worker. The said loss was calculated at Rs. 2,066.25 which the relevant office of the Corporation paid to respondent-worker as loss of his earning capacity after sending the respondent-worker a letter of information dated 7.10.1980.2. The respondent-worker, thereafter, preferred an Appeal No. 81 of 1980, Mohd Asfaq v. E.S.I. Corporation, under Section 54A of the afore noted Act on 23.10.1980 before the Employees' Insurance Court, Kanpur, which the Judge allowed partly and thereby modified the decision of the Medical Board to the extent that the worker Mohd. Asfaq will be awarded 5% loss of his earning ...
Tag this Judgment!