Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC305; [1966]36CompCas165(SC); [1965(11)FLR137]; (1965)IILLJ175SC; [1966]1SCR25
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the award of the NationalIndustrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay, in a dispute between the ReserveBank of India and its workmen, delivered on 8 September, 1962, and published inthe Gazette of India (Extraordinary) of 29 September, 1962. The appellants arethe All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association, Bombay (shortly theassociation), representing Class II and Class III staff and the All IndiaReserve Bank D Class Employees' Union, Kanpur (shortly the union), representingclass IV staff, of the Reserve Bank. 2. By notification No. S.O. 704 dated the 21st March 1960, the CentralGovernment, in exercise of its powers under s. 7B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, constituted a National Industrial Tribunal with Mr. Justice K. T. Desai(later Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court) as the Presiding Officer. By anorder notified under No. S.O. 707 of the same date, Central Government, in theexercise of the powers conferred by su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IIIAD(SC)691; AIR1998SC2841; [1998(79)FLR229]; JT1998(3)SC56; 1998(2)SCALE657b; (1998)6SCC436; 1998(1)LC682(SC)
ORDERJudgement pronounced by K. Venkataswami, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order dated 9.12.94 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 664/91 and O.P.No. 7523/89. The questions that arose for consideration before the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 664/91 were (a) whether the Food Corporation of India (for short 'FCI'), the appellant herein, for the purposes of application of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') would be an 'establishment' and (b) whether 31 head load workers (workers in question for short) engaged by the Contractor in loading and unloading operation at Kuttipuram Railway Station would be regarded as 'employees' of the FCT within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and consequently liable to remit the contributions required under the Act. The latter question alone was agitated before us.2. The question for consideration before the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 7523/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1559; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)339; (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN30; 109(2004)DLT17(SC); 2004(73)DRJ720; JT2004(2)SC1; 2004(1)SCALE677; (2004)2SCC510; 2004(2)LC955(SC)
V.N. Khare, C.J. 1. Leave granted in the S.L.P.2. In these appeals a short but an important question that arises for consideration is whether the right to fly the National Flag by Indian citizen is a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.3. Naveen Jindal, the respondent herein, is a Joint Managing Director of a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. He being in charge of the factory of the said company situated at Raigarh in Madhya Pradesh was flying National Flag at the office premises of his factory. He was not allowed to do so by the government officials on the ground that the same is impermissible under the Flag Code of India.4. Questioning the said action, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that no law could prohibit flying of National Flag by Indian citizens. Flying of National Flag with respect and dignity being a fundamental right, the Flag Code which contain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1369; [1988]64CompCas358(SC); JT1988(2)SC167; (1988)IILLJ423aSC; (1988)3SCC105; [1988]3SCR662; 1988(2)LC10(SC)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These appeals raise an identical question and are as such being decided by a common judgment. Before coming to the question involved in these appeals it would be necessary to give in brief the facts of each of these cases to indicate the circumstances in which the said question arises. Civil Appeal Nos. 4291-4292 of 1984 have been preferred against the judgment dated 18th April, 1984 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. C.V. Raman, the appellant in these two appeals was an employee in the Bank of India which is a Nationalised Bank. He was dismissed from service in pursuance of disciplinary action for certain charges framed against him. Aggrieved, he preferred an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu Shops Act). A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Bank of India to the effect that the Tamil Nadu Shops Act was not applicable to the Bank in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1061a
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ No. 2291 of 1970, which was heard by a Bench of five Judges. Four Judges held that Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it amended the relevant provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. Pandit, J., however, held that the impugned Act was intra vires the legislative powers of Parliament. The High Court accordingly issued a direction to the effect that the Wealth Tax Act, as amended by Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it includes the capital value of the agricultural land for the purposes of computing net wealth, was ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. We may mention that the majority also held that the impugned Act was not a law with respect to entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; in other words, it held that this tax was not covered by entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule.3. The Wealth Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC694; [1962]Supp1SCR753
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This petition has been filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution and it seeks to challenge the validity of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act 4 of 1961) (hereafter called the Act). The petitioner owns about 1,250 acres of land in the Kerala State. These lands were originally situated within the erstwhile State of Cochin which now forms part of the Kerala State. Out of the lands owned by the petitioner nearly 900 acres are classified in the land records maintained by the State as Pandaravaka holdings while the remaining lands are classified as Puravaka holdings. By his petition the petitioner claims a declaration that the Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional and prays for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents, the State of Kerala, restraining it from implementing the provisions of the Act. It appears that a notification has been issued by the respondent on February 15, 1961, directing the implementation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1896; (1980)ILLJ137SC; (1980)2SCC593; [1980]2SCR146
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1212, 2089 and 2237 of 1978. From the Judgment and order dated 15-6-1978 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1150 of 1976. Y.S. Chitale, J.C. Bhatt, A.K. Sen, J.M. Nanavati, D.C. Gandhi, A.G. Menses, K.J. John and K.K. Manchanda for the Appellants in C.A. 1212 and 2237/78 and RR. 1 in CA 2089. V.M. Tarkunde, Y.S. Chitale, P.H. Parekh and N.J. Mehta for the Appellant in CA 2089 and R. 1 in CA 1212. M.C. Bhandare and B. Datta for the Intervener in CA 1212 (Ahmedabad Nagar Employee Union). R.K. Garg, Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta for the Intervener Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha in CA 1212. The Judgment of V.R. Krishna Iyer, and D.A. Desai, JJ was delivered by Krishna Iyer, J.A.D. Koshal, J. gave a dissenting Opinion. KRISHNA IYER, J.-Every litigation has a moral and, these appeals have many, the foremost being that the economics of law is the essence of labour jurisprudence. The case in a nutshell- An affluent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC564; [1970]40CompCas325(SC); (1970)1SCC248; [1970]3SCR530
J.C. Shah, J.1. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper--hereinafter called 'the petitioner'--holds shares in the Central Bank of India Ltd., the Bank of Baroda Ltd., the Union Bank of India Ltd., and the Bank of India Ltd., and has accounts--current and fixed deposit --with those Banks : he is also a director of the Central Bank of India Ltd. By these petitions he claims a declaration that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 8 of 1969 promulgated on July 19, 1969, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 which replaced the Ordinance with certain modifications impair his rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, and are on that account invalid.2. In India there was till 1949 no comprehensive legislation governing banking business and banking institutions. The Central Legislature enacted the Banking Companies Act 10 of 1949 (later called 'The Banking Regulation Act') to consolidate and amend the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC597; (1978)1SCC248; [1978]2SCR621
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The case before us involves questions relating to basic human rights. On such questions I believe that multiplicity of views giving the approach of each member of this Court is not a disadvantage if it clarifies our not infrequently differing approaches. It should enable all interested to appreciate better the significance of our Constitution.2. As I am in general agreement with my learned brethren Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer. I will endeavour to confine my observations to an indication of my own approach on some matters for consideration now before us. This seems to me to be particularly necessary as my learned brother Kailasam, who has also given us the benefit of his separate opinion, has a somewhat different approach. I have had the advantage of going through the opinions of each of my three learned brethren.3. It seems to me that there can be little doubt that the right to travel and to go outside the country, which orders regulating issue, suspension or impounding,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1416; (1985)87BOMLR563; (1985)3CompLJ45(SC); [1985(51)FLR362]; (1985)IILLJ206SC; 1985(2)SCALE133; (1985)3SCC398; [1985]Supp2SCR131; 1985(2)SLJ145(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. The above Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court and the above Writ Petitions filed either in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or in different High Courts under Article 226 and transferred to this Court raise a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution and in particular of what is now, after the amendment of Clause (2) of Article 311 by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the second proviso to that clause.The Genesis of the Appeals and Writ Petitions2. To understand what questions fall for determination by this Court in these Appeals and Writ Petitions, it is first necessary to sketch briefly how they have come to be heard by this Constitution Bench.3. Article 311 of the Constitution confers certain safeguards upon persons employed in civil capacities under the Union of India or a State. The first safeguard (which is given by Clause (1) of Article 311) is that s...
Tag this Judgment!