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 : 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 : Gujarat
Reported in : (1990)1GLR325
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Articles 14 and 16 thereof, 155 employees whose names are listed at Annexure 'D' to the petition and who are working on different posts as foremen, mechanics, helpers, fitters etc. in the Central Workshop division and Water Tanker sub-division at Odhav, Ahmedabad and who are in service of the first respondent-State in the Public Works Department, have raised two grievances against the State of Gujarat and the Superintending Engineer who is the head of the department and who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The first grievance is that the respondents are not giving benefit of all public holidays declared during any calendar year to be enjoyed by the State Government employees, to the petitioners and the second grievance is that they are also denied the benefit of second and fourth Saturdays which are already treated as paid holiday for other Government servants. According to the petitioners,...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)SCALE101; 2009(3)SLJ245(SC):2009AIRSCW629
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Eastern Railway Administration of Union of India is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 20.4.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No. 365 of 2004 and WPCT No. 840 of 2004 dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants from a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1254 of 2000 and 10th February 2004 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 1458 of 1997.3. The short question which arose for consideration before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court, was whether the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission could have been extended in favour of respondents herein with effect from 18.2.2000 in stead and in place of 1.10.1996; and whether their claim for fixation of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996 was justified.4. Respondents were appointed as Time Keepers in different workshops belon...
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!