Court : Mumbai
1. By this Chamber Summons in execution application the applicants seek dispensation with notice under order 21 rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with High Court (O.S.) Rules 316 and 317 of High Court (Original Side) Rules and seeks an order and directions against the Municipal Corporation and its officers (respondent nos.1 to 4) to decide the application dated 29th February, 2012 made by the applicant no.1 or in the alternative to appoint a fit and proper person/officer with all powers duties and functions of the Executive Engineer and Ward Officer as per Rules and as per Development Control Regulations Greater Mumbai, 1991 to decide in accordance with the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the Division Bench the application dated 29th February, 2012 made by the applicant no.1. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this execution application and the chamber summons are as under:- 2. On 11th June, 2010, the Executive Engineer, Building Proposal issued a not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR383; (2009)IVLLJ745Bom
1. The petitioner-trade union by this petition challenges the process initiated for verification of the membership of the trade union operating in the establishment to find out which trade union commands support of the majority of the workers. The case of the petitioner-trade union in nutshell is that they had given their consent for carrying out process of verification of membership of trade union by secret ballot pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 1997 dated 5th May, 1998 (Oil and Natural Gas Commission Karmachari Sanghatana v. Ministry of Petroleum) and as now by its judgment in the case {Air India Employees Guild v. Air India Ltd.) reported in : 2007(1) Bom.C.R. (F.B.) 529, the Full Bench of this Court has overruled the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 1997 dated 5th May, 1998, now the process of verification of membership of the trade union by secret ballot system cannot be carried out. In our opinion, the petition cannot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(1)SC606; (1993)IILLJ1148SC; 1993(1)SCALE206; (1993)2SCC31; 1993(1)SLJ115(SC); (1993)2UPLBEC874
ORDER1. This contempt petition is filed by Class III and Class IV employees of the Food Corporation of India [FCI] with the grievance that the respondent-FCI has not complied with the direction given by this Court in its order of 3rd May, 1990. Two of the directions of which we find non-compliance by the respondents are:[i] Recommendations made in the report of the High Power Pay Committee with regard to the revised pay scales which were to be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1986.[ii] The employees concerned were to continue to enjoy the option to switch over to the Industrial Dearness Allowance [IDA] pattern of the scales of pay on a voluntary basis.2. In its reply to the contempt petition, the respondent-FCI has pleaded that it was acting according to the directions of the Central Government. The counter filed on behalf of the Union of India shows that they have confused the case of the employees of the FCI with those of the other Public Sector Enterprises [PSEs]. It is necessary in this conn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1989(2)ARBLR295(Delhi); 39(1989)DLT242
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, a climnt, filed a petition (S. No. 1854-A/86) under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act .(for short 'the Act') for making award dated 4th August, 1986 of the third respondent the sole arbitrator, rule of the court. (2) On notice being issued, the arbitrator filed his award and the proceedings. Thereafter, parties were given notice of filing of the award. The objections to the award have been filed by the first respondent (IA 1436/87). (3) On pleas of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections by respondents, 1 and 2, (2) Relief. (4) Parties led their evidence by means of affidavits. (5) Three, main objections to the award have been taken, namely, (i) in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties the arbitrator did not give reasons; (ii) the arbitrator gave an award of Rs. l,41,000.00 to the claimant on account of increase in the prices of blocks, labour etc. which was wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ685Mad
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. This writ petition raises an important question with respect to the procedure for recognition of a trade union as the representative body of workmen in an industry in the absence of a specific statutory provision of law.2. MRF Limited (Madras Rubber Factory) is a leading Tyre manufacturing company situated in Ichiputhur Village of Arakonam Taluk in Vellore District of Tamil Nadu. It is having its Corporate Office in Chennai. It employs around 1500 workmen in different capacities, and it is one of the major industrial units situated in the vicinity of Chennai.3. The appellant/petitioner is a Registered Trade Union, which claims to represent majority of the workmen functioning in this industry. Respondent No. 6 is another Trade Union, which also claims to have majority membership. Respondent No. 4 is the Management of MRF Limited and Respondent No. 5 is its Plant Manager. Respondents 4 and 5 are stated to be entertaining Respondent No. 6 and not the petitioner for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(2)BomCR3; 1995(2)MhLj587
ORDERS.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to have the Award dated 21st June, 1991 filed in this court and numbered as 'Award No. 98 of 1991' (for short 'the said Award') set aside. 2. The petitioners are a Corporation established under The Food Corporation Act, 1964 and are a Government of India undertaking having an office at Bombay. The petitioners are engaged in activities, inter alia, like movement, storage and trading in foodgrains and other foodstuffs including edible oils. The respondents are a Company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and are engaged in the shipped business. The respondents have their registered office situate at Bombay. 3. By a Charter Party dated Bombay, 7th October, 1983 made between the respondents as owners of the Motor Vessel 'Jag Rakshak' and the President of India of behalf and for the benefit of the petitioners, the said vessel 'Jag Rakshak' was lot out to the petitioners through...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1982All349
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. This bunch of writ petitions challenges the validity of the notification dated 28th April, 1979, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the U. P. Gazette dated 9th June, 1979, and the notification dated 26th May, 1981, published in the official gazette dated June 19, 1981 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. By these notifications the lands of some villages situate within the jurisdiction of the Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad are being acquired for establishment of Avas Colony under a Planned Development Scheme.2. Some of the petitioners challenging the aforesaid notification have been decided by a separate judgment. Some arguments which have not been dealt with in that judgment are being decided in this judgment.3. The submission first made by the petitioners learned counsel was that as the acquisition of the land is for the Allahabad Development Authority, the mandatory provisions contained in U. P. Urban Planning and Develop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1028; JT2001(2)SC175; (2001)ILLJ743SC; 2001(1)SCALE540; (2001)4SCC101; [2001]1SCR742
Pattanaik,J.1. South Malabar Gramin Bank and the Union of India, have filed two civil appeals against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 25.11.1998. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeals filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the Central Government having accepted the NIT Award as well as the report of the Equation Committee and having given effect to the 5th Bipartite Settlement between the employees of the sponsor bank and the management, the employees and officers of the Regional Rural Banks ipso facto would be entitled to the revision of their wages, as and when the wages of the sponsor bank employees get revised, pursuant to Bipartite Settlement and, therefore the subsequent Bipartite Settlements, namely the 6th and 7th Bipartite Settlements should be given effect to revise the pay structure of the officers and employees of the Regional Rural Banks also. In these appeals, apart from the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(3)WLC122; 2002(4)WLN92
Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 26.5.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, allowing the claim of the respondent workman and directing the petitioner Municipal Board to reinstate him with 50% of back wages from the date of reference till the date of Award. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent-workman filed an application on 15.5.1990 (Annex. 1) before the Chairman of the Board that he was qualified to be appointed on the post of Tax Assessor: post was lying vacant; thus he should be appointed. He was appointed on temporary basis, vide order dated 22.3.1991 (Annex.2), as a Tax Assessor by the Chairman of petitioner Municipal Board (for short, 'the Board') for a period of one year, or till regularly selected candidate was made available. When the period of one year was likely to expire, the workman approached the Civil Court by filing Suit No. 5/1992 and vide order dated 21.5.1992 (A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2004Cal254,2004(4)CHN30
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This is an application under Order 21, Rule 11 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC), it has been filed for execution of order dated Sept. 6th passed in Writ Petition No. 2581 of 2001.2. The facts :-- The respondent (Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority) is the tenant of certain portions of the property at 3A, Auckland Place, Kolkata. The petitioners are the landlords. On Sept. 19th, 2000 the respondent agreed to refer the dispute regarding revision of rent to the competent authority in terms of circular dated August 3rd/11th, 1993 of the State Government. On the reference the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, gave the decision dated March 20th , 2001. He fixed the fair and reasonable rent at Rs. 2,83,389/- per month inclusive of all taxes and costs of repairs and maintenance, the determination was directed to be effective from Jan. 1st, 1997. The petitioners forwarded the draft copy of the agreement, but the respon...
Tag this Judgment!