Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3290; 2000(4)ALLMR(SC)862; [2000(87)FLR610]; 2000(6)SCALE586; (2000)8SCC167; [2000]Supp3SCR513
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C)No. 12499 of 1997.2. The controversy raised in all these appeals relates to validity of the revision of license fee under the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') which was introduced by the State Government by G.O.Ms. No. 154, E & F Deptt. Dated 26.07,1994. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the cases, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The appellants who are owners of factories located in the State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the levy of revised license fee by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The challenge was on several grounds some of which are not relevant for the purpose of the present proceedings. Suffice it to state that the main grounds on which the revised license fee was challenged were(i) that the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') does not impose license fee as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT644; (1998)IIILLJ450AP
Motilal B. Naik, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the VST Industries Canteen Workers' Union represented by its Secretary P. Navaneetham seeking a mandamusdirecting the first respondent to treat the members of the petitioner-Union who are the employees of the Canteeen, established under Section 46of the Factories Act by the first respondent, as the employees of the first respondent-Company and seeks a consequential direction to tender all monetary and other benefits accrued and acquired by treating them as employees of the first respondent.2. The claim of the petitioner is that it is a union registered under Trade Unions Act vide Regd. No. B. 1421 and by their resolution dated April 19, 1992 authorised the Secretary Sri P. Navaneetham to file the present writ petition seeking a direction to direct the respondents to treat the canteen workers and the members of the petitioners-Union numbering 65 (the said list is described in Annexure-I of the material papers) as the employees of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC No. 319/2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur, for the offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. 2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that - On 26.7.2013 -at about 12.00 p.m., a person by name Sri Thammaiah, Executive Engineer (Safety), Raichur Thermal Power Station, Shakthinagar, Raichur, informed the complainant i.e., Assistant Director of Factories, Raichur Division, Raichur, about the electrical fatal accident which took place at outdoor yard, Lingsugur Line-Ill inside the premises of the factory. The complainant's office received notice on dangerous occurrence of cause of death of - one Anantha S/o. Vivekananda, while performing annual overhauling/break down maintenance work of 220/400 KV switch Yard equipments, such as SF6 circuit breakers, isolators, CTs, CVTs., PTs., Las., DG sets and LT Switch Gear. The deceased by name Anantha son of Vivekananda, Y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR1139],(2004)ILLJ904Cal
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner company runs a hospital and according to the petitioners, service rendered by the petitioner company is patient health care service and such service is not covered by any notification of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ESI Act).2. The respondent authorities however, arranged inspections of the units of the petitioner company. Considering the inspection report submitted by the Inspector, concerned authority of the respondent Employees' State Insurance Corporation decided that both the units of the petitioner company should be treated as 'factory' within the purview of Section 2(12) of the ESI Act w.e.f. October 02, 1997 and the decision of the said respondent authorities regarding: coverage of the establishment of the petitioner company under ESI Act was communicated to the petitioner company by written communication dated November 23, 1998.3. The respondent Deputy Regional Director by another written c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2005)IILLJ653Mad; (2005)1MLJ686
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The writ appeal is preferred g inst the judgment of learned Judge in W.P.No. 10628 of 1988 dated 30.9.1997. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein and the point that rises in the appeal is whether the appellants who are employees in the statutory canteen run by the first respondent in the appeal are employees of the first respondent for all purposes.2. The appellants numbering 103 persons have filed the writ petition for writ of declaration declaring that the appellants are the workmen of the respondents 1 and 2 and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise their services and absorb them and also for the issue of further and other orders. 3. The case of the appellants, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the first respondent, Madras Refineries Limited, is factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948, and in the said factory, more than 2000 workmen are employed on three shift basis and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP336
Dixit, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee, the Chhaganlal Textile Mills Private Ltd. Bhopal. The question, which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us for decision, is : ' Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the claims in the sum of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 1,75,000 for earned leave wages and retrenchment compensation respectively by the Tribunal is justified in law '2. The material facts are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of textiles at Bhopal. It was incorporated in January 1956. In the assessment year 1957-58 on which the accounting period ended on 28-2-1957, the assessee claimed that in the computation of its profits and gains for the accounting period it was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 75,000 being the amount set apart as a reserve fund in its balance-sheet as on 28th February 1957 for the pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1985)IILLJ77Mad
Ratnam, J.1. The appellant was an employee of the respondent herein as Godown Keeper in its premises located at No. 216, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Madras 81, which was covered by a Factory licence relating to the 'spare parts division.' In May 1973, it was found that in the godown there had been tampering with the seals of some boxes and that some others were kept open and this led to the preparation of an inventory which revealed that goods worth about Rs. 20,013.26 were found missing. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 12th June, 1973 why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for gross negligence resulting in the loss of goods. After conducting an enquiry on 7th September, 1983, the services of the appellant were terminated. Against the order of termination, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the second respondent herein, under S. 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (for short, Shops Act). Even at the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ51Bom; 1992(1)MhLj904
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Labour court Nagpur on May 10, 1985 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directing payment of overtime wages at a rate double than the ordinary rate of wages purportedly under Section 59 of the Factories Act. 2.38 employees of the petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of difference in overtime wages which they were entitled to under Section 59 of the Factories Act and those actually paid from the year 1960 to December 1978. Overtime wages were paid to the 38 employees who were working as clerks up to May 1973 at the rate which was prescribed by Mangalmurti Award and from June 1, 1973 onwards they have been paid overtime wages at the rate of twice the ordinary rate of wage as per Section 59 of the Factories Act, rate 11/2 times the ordinary rate of wages for the overtime work put in be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1966]62ITR274(MP)
DIXIT, C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee, the Chhaganlal Textile Mills Private Ltd., Bhopal. The question which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us for decision is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the claim in the sum of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 1,75,000 for earned leave wages and retrenchment compensation respectively by the Tribunal is justified in la ?'The material facts are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of textiles at Bhopal. It was incorporated in January, 1956. In the assessment year 1957-58, on which the accounting period ended on 28th February, 1957, the assessee claimed that, in the computation of its profits and gains for the accounting period, it was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 75,000, being the amount set apart as a reserve fund in its balance-sheet as on 28th February, 1957, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2412; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)922; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN164; [2005(105)FLR1051]; JT2005(5)SC62; (2005)IILLJ684SC; (2005)5SCC51; 2005(2)SLJ440(SC); 2005(2)LC891(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This appeal by grant of leave is directed against the judgment dated 31.03.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in M.A.T. No. 4310 of 1998. By the impugned order the Division Bench has set aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge of the same High Court in C.O. No. 6266 (W) of 1990 with C.O. No. 6274 (W) of 1990. The Single Judge had allowed the writ application filed by the appellants and directed the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia Oil Refinery (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') to absorb the appellants in its service and regularise their services. Division Bench, has set aside the aforesaid direction given by the learned Single Judge and held that the appellants were neither entitled to be absorbed nor regularised in the service of the respondent.2. Short facts of the case are as under:-Two sets of writ applications were filed in the High Court of Calcutta involving common question of law and fact, both...
Tag this Judgment!