Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1288; JT1997(4)SC44; (1997)ILLJ1217SC; 1997(2)SCALE670; (1997)10SCC142; [1997]2SCR798
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the second respondent in this appeal has about 12,000 employees. Out of these about 1850 employees are working in the refinery division of the second respondent. Process Technicians and Analysts' Union which is the appellant-Union has a membership of about 411 employees in the refinery division of the second respondent-corporation. 2. Prior to 1976 there were two companies; one was Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. which was an Indian company and the other was Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company which was a foreign company registered in the United Kingdom and was a marketing company. On or about 24th of January, 1976, the entire share capital of Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. was purchased by the Government of India and Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. became a Government Company, and later a public Sector Undertaking. The Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company which was a foreign company was acquired by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR2664; 1995(6)KarLJ588
ORDERMohan Kumar, J. 1. This case illustrates how otherwise a speedy remedy can be delayed and defeated by the deliberate actions. The petitioner which is a partnership firm had employed the 1st respondent herein as a clearing, packing and canvassing agent on a consolidated salary of Rs. 140/-. His services were terminated with effect from 31.8.1964. The present proceedings started challenging the termination. The 1st respondent challenged his termination as illegal and sought for appropriate remedy under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The office of the petitioner-firm was situated in Mangalore in South Kanara District which was formerly part of the erstwhile Madras State. The said appeal was preferred invoking Section 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Madras Act') before the Competent Authority then competent to entertain the appeal. Annexure-B is the appeal filed by the 1st respondent in September 1964 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2001; JT1995(5)SC1; 1995(4)SCALE1; 1995Supp(4)SCC286; [1995]Supp1SCR542
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. When Lord Jesus Christ was asked by a youngman who was possessed of property what was the road to heaven, the Holy Bible records it in Chapter 19 of the New Testament - the Gospel According to St. Mathew thus,16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?17. And he said unto him, Why cellist thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steel, Thou shalt not bear false witness,19. Honour the father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.20. The young man saith unto him. All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?21. Jesus said unto him, if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.22. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1002; (1995)ILLJ801Guj
1. The only question which requires determination in this reference to the Full Bench is whether the relief undertakings carried out by the State Government to provide sustenance to the persons affected by famine, flood, earthquake or scarcity is an 'industry Common parlance reply would be : it is not an 'industry'. Still, the question is a vexed one as it is required to be dealt with after considering the definition of the work 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as interpreted by various Courts. 2. The Division Bench consisting of A. H. Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) and R. J. Shah, J., in the case of J. J. Shrimali v. District Development Officer : (1989)1GLR396 , held that when a State Government during famine and drought undertakes relief works intended to provide the much needed relief to scarcity affected people living in the affected areas, it is not embarking upon any industrial or commercial enterprise but is merely trying to fulfill its obligatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1918; JT1994(2)SC215; 1994(2)SCALE37; (1994)3SCC1; [1994]2SCR644
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. On behalf of Kuldip Singh, J. and himself. Article 356 has a vital bearing on the democratic parliamentary form of government and the autonomy of the States under the federal Constitution that we have adopted. The interpretation of the Article has, therefore, once again engaged the attention of this Court in the background of the removal of the governments and the dissolution of the legislative assemblies in six States with which we are concerned here, on different occasions and in different situations by the exercise of power under the Article. The crucial question that falls for consideration in all these matters is whether the President has unfettered powers to issue Proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution. The answer to this question depends upon the answers to the following questions: (a) Is the Proclamation amenable to judicial review? (b) If yes, what is the scope of the judicial review in this respect? and (c) What is the meaning of the expr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC268; JT1993(5)SC497; (1993)4SCC441; [1993]Supp2SCR659
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.(for himself and on behalf of Yogeshwar Dayal, G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand & S.P. Bharucha, JJ.) :1. By and Order dated October 26,1990 passed in Subhash Sharma and Ors. and Anr. Union of India (1990) 2 S.C.R. 433 and the matters connected therewith, the papers of Writ petition No. 1303 of 1987 - Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. v. Union Of India were directed to be placed before the learned Chief Justice of India for constituting a Bench of nine Judges to examine the two question referred therein, namely, the position of the Chief Justice of India with reference to primacy, and justiciability of fixation of Judge strength. That Order was made since the referring Bench was of the opinion, that the correctness of the majority view in S.P. Gupta and Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. : [1982]2SCR365 , required reconsideration by a larger Bench. This is how these questions arise for decision by this Bench.2. The context in which the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Department of Treasury v. Fabe - 508 U.S. 491 (1993) OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Syllabus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ET AL. v. FABE, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF OHIO CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 91-1513. Argued December 8, 1992-Decided June 11, 1993 In proceedings under Ohio law to liquidate an insolvent insurance company, the United States asserted that its claims as obligee on various of the company's surety bonds were entitled to first priority under 31 U. S. C. 3713(a)(1)(A)(iii). Respondent Fabe, the liquidator appointed by the state court, brought a declaratory judgment action in the Federal District Court to establish that priority in such proceedings is governed by an Ohio statute that ranks governmental claims behind (1) administrative expenses, (2) specified wage claims, (3) policyholders' claims, and (4) general creditors' claims. Fabe argued that the federal priority statute does not pre-empt the Ohio law because t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey - 505 U.S. 833 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ET AL. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 91-744. Argued April 22, 1992-Decided June 29, 1992* At issue are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982: 3205, which requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the procedure, and specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed; 3206, which mandates the informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an abortion, but provides a judicial bypass procedure; 3209, which commands that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband; 3203, which defines a "medical emergency" that will excuse compliance w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)IILLJ14Bom
Deshpande, J.1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek - (i) a declaration that the petitioners belong to Maharashtra Education Class-I (Collegiate Branch) designated as Professors, (ii) their equation with Lecturers (Junior Scale) under the Government Resolution, dated 25th October 1977, and their superannuation before completing the age of 60 years, be quashed, (iii) to equate the pay scales of the petitioners with those of Readers in the Universities and Principals in the affiliated colleges and give consequential benefits to the petitioners as stipulated by the Government Resolution dated 27th February 1989, (iv) to superannuate the petitioners at the age of 60 years without subjecting them to a review at the age of 50 and 55 years as required by Rule 161(C-a) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules ('BCSR' for short), by Clause 26 of the Government Resolution dated 27th February 1989, and (v) to quash Rule 161 of the BCSR as ultra vires Articles 14 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Webster v. Reproductive Health Svcs. - 492 U.S. 490 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Webster v. Reproductive Health Svcs., 492 U.S. 490 (1989) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services No. 88-605 Argued April 26, 1989 Decided July 3, 1989 492 U.S. 490 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Appellees, state-employed health professionals and private nonprofit corporations providing abortion services, brought suit in the District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of a Missouri statute regulating the performance of abortions. The statute, inter alia: (1) sets forth "findings" in its preamble that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and wellbeing," 1.205.1(1), (2), and requires that all state laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with the same rights enjoyed by other persons, subject to the Federal Constit...
Tag this Judgment!