Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad269; (1953)IILLJ29Mad; (1952)IIMLJ917
1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the manager of the Gemini Studios. Madras, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, for having contravened the provisions of the Factories Act and having thereby committed an offence under Section 92 of the said Act.2. The appellant has boon found guilty of the following three offences: (1) under Section 61 and Section 108(2) read with Rule 79 for having failed to specify, or enter, in the notice of periods of work exhibited at the main entrance of the studio, the working hours of the workers engaged in the departments, of directors and artists, cameramen and sound engineers, makeup artists, electricians, editors, laboratorians and still photographers and their assistants; (2) under Section 62 read with Rule 80 for having failed to enter the particulars of all the workers engaged in the said department in Form No. 12 register; and (3) under Section 20 read with Rule 51 for having failed to provide spittoons in the factory as per the type prescr...
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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2577; JT1999(5)SC339; (1999)IILLJ696SC; (1999)2MLJ88(SC); RLW1999(2)SC329; 1999(2)SCALE541a; (1999)6SCC439; [1999]Supp1SCR47
Santosh Hegde, J.1. C.A. No. 1854/98 is an appeal preferred by M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited and another (hereinafter referred to as the management) against an order dated 29.8.1997 made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 2206/97 filed by the Shramik Sena and another (hereinafter referred to as the workmen).2. C.A. No. 1855/98 is an appeal filed by the workmen against the above-mentioned order of the High Court of Bombay. Both the appeals having been clubbed together, are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.3. The workmen referred to above, filed the above writ petition before the High Court of Bombay for a declaration that the workmen whose names are shown in Ex. 'A' annexed to the said petition, are the regular workmen of the management and are entitled to have the same pay-scales and service conditions as are applicable to regular workmen of the management. It was further prayed that a direction be given to the management to absorb the w...
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 : 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 : AIR1955Bom209; (1955)57BOMLR135; 1955CriLJ932; ILR1955Bom624; (1955)IILLJ182Bom
Dixit, J.1. This is a group of four appeals, each of which arises from a distinct set of facts but all of which raise common questions under the Factories Act, 1948. Before setting out the questions raised, it may be convenient first to refer to the facts in each appeal.2. In Criminal Appeal No. 805, the facts are these. The respondent is the manager of a factory called 'Pistol Bidi Factory', situated at 943-E Ward. 6th Line, Shahnpuri, Kolhapur. One V. M. Mardhekar, Junior Inspector of Factories, visited this factory on 13-9-1952, at 2-30 p.m. along with one M. V. Ponkshe, Government Labour Officer and Additional Inspector of Factories, Kolhapur. It was alleged that 110 workers wore working in the factory at the time of the visit, but the register of leave with wages (Form No. 18) in respect of a worker named Airavan Subrao Ghugre was not maintained in the factory and the worker was not provided with a leave book (Form No. 19). Ghugrewas working in the factory for about five years. Th...
Tag this Judgment!