Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC234
ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of an application filed by the employees of Associated Industries (Assam) Spinning Unit, Chandrapur, a unit of National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Ltd. [NTC (WBABO) Ltd.] under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the Employees' State Insurance Court at Gauhati (hereinafter referred to as “the ESI Court”). The case of the employees (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent-employees”) was that they were not required to make a contribution for the Employees' State Insurance Scheme which had been made applicable to them after the increase of the ceiling for applicability of the Act from Rs 1600 per month to Rs 3000 per month on the ground that the medical benefits which they were enjoying earlier on the basis of the NTC (WBABO) Ltd. Medical Rules were more advantageous to them than the bene...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)438; [1996(74)FLR2652]; JT1996(9)SC533; 1996(6)SCALE751; (1996)10SCC740; [1996]Supp5SCR431; 1996(3)SLJ136(SC); [1997]104STC94(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made on January 23, 1995 in OA No. 3/92. The admitted position is that the appellant was appointed to Tamil Nadu State Police Services by direct recruitment on October 7, 1979. He was transferred and posted as D.C.P., Law & Order, Madras (South) which is a cadre post, w.e.f. July 27, 1980 and ever since he had been continuously officiating in the cadre post. He was included in the select, list for the first time, on October 26, 1979 approved by the UPSC on December 12, 1979. the same list was continued for the year 1980. But in the select list for the year 1981, he was not included for want of requisite vacancy allot table to the State cadre. Consequently, he came to be included again on December 16, 1982 in the select list approved by the UPSC on March 28, 1983. When his seniority was determined, the order of al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC531; [2005(107)FLR1143]; [2006(1)JCR15(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC213; RLW2006(2)SC1244; 2005(9)SCALE73; (2005)8SCC747; 2006(2)SLJ390(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') praying for grant of arrears of pay and pension.2. The factual background is as follows:The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on September 13, 1978. On March 30, 1987 he was arrested in a criminal case for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The appellant was convicted by the trial Court. However, his appeal was accepted by the High Court and he was acquitted vide order dated March 26, 1992. The appellant alleges that he was released from the Jail on April 4, 1992 and that he had reported to his Unit along with a copy of the judgment on the next day. He further stated that he was reinstated on the strength of such acquittal and continued in service, but his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC400; (1997)11SCC237
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. These matters arise under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (1 of 1959). The assessment years are 1986-87 and 1987-88. The assessment orders were made in respect of these two years on 3-3-1988 and 15-2-1989 respectively. A notice under Section 16 of the Act proposing to reopen the assessments in respect of the said two assessment years was issued on 14-7-1993 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Karaikudi. The contention of the asses-see is that this notice is beyond five years prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act and hence barred. The notice is undoubtedly issued beyond five years but the respondent's case is that it is not barred because of the provisions contained in Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 16. For appreciating the respondent's contention, a few facts need to be noted : By GOMs No. 637 dated 7-6-1982 read with Notification No. II(1)/ CTRE/116/77 dated 16-4-1977, the Government of Tamil Nadu conferred upon the E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(12)SCALE656; (2009)10SCC531; 2009(9)LC4474(SC)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This batch of ten appeals by special leave raises identical issues and emanates from a common order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Meerut Division, Meerut and, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of each appeal as narration of facts in Civil Appeal No. 3058 of 2008 would suffice for deciding the controversy raised in this group of appeals.3. On January 24, 2002, the Additional Collector (Finance/Revenue) (for short, `Prescribed Authority'), Gautambudh Nagar issued a notice under Section 9(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, `Act, 1960') calling upon the appellants to file details of the land held by them in Ceiling Land Holding Form No. 2 (for short, `CLH Form-2') along with enclosures within a period of thirty days from the date of notice.4. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice under Section 9(2), the appellan...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC226; 2002(1)AWC21(SC); 2002CriLJ94; [2002(92)FLR14]; [2002(1)JCR282(SC)]; JT2001(9)SC650; 2002LabIC131; (2002)ILLJ237SC; 2001(8)SCALE282; (2002)1SCC337
The respondent No. 1 is a Government of India undertaking. It was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 30th November 1972. One of the main objects for which the respondent No. 1 was established was to promote, encourage and develop the availability, use, supply and distribution at reasonable cost in the country of artificial limbs to needy persons particularly disabled defence personnel. For this purpose the respondent No. 1 set up a factory where more than 700 persons are employed. The respondent No. 1 also set up a canteen for its employees. From time to time agreements were entered into between the respondent No. 1 and different contractors by which the contractor agreed to prepare and serve food stuffs and other refreshments at the canteen. At the relevant time the concerned contractor was Aditya Shukla, the respondent No.2 herein.According to the appellants, they were employed by several of the contractors and had been serving in the canteen for several years. During the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.708 of 2020 Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. The State of Gujarat ...Petitioners Versus ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Index A B C D E F G H I The Notifications Grounds of challenge The power under Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1962 Precedent on public emergency and security of the state Interpreting public emergency in Section 5 Scheme and objects of the Factories Act, 1962 Social and economic value of overtime Constitutional vision of social and economic democracy Summation 1 PART A1Invoking its powers under Section 5 of the Factories Act, 19481, the State of Gujarat has exempted factories from observing some of the obligations which employers have to fulfil towards the workmen employed by them. The government justifies the action on the ground that industrial employers are faced with financial stringency in the economic downturn resulting from the outbreak of COVID -19....
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!