Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1973Cal450,77CWN711
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. A summons under Section 12 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (Act 54 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the said Act) issued on April 14, 1972 by the Monopolies and the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the said Commission) and an order dated May 12, 1972 passed by the said Commission are the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition.2. M/s. Keshoram Industries and Cotton Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as Keshoram Industries) applied for Central Government's approval under Section 22(2) of the said Act to a proposal for the establishment of a factory at Patan, District Sikar in the State of Rajasthan for the manufacture of cement. Central Government made a reference under Section 22(3)(b) of the said Act to the said commission to make necessary inquiries and report its opinion such application. On February 4, 1971 the said commission issued a notification inviting informations from all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1965Cal552,69CWN317,(1965)IILLJ230Cal
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of B. C. Mitra, J., dated 9th July, 1963. The learned Judge was dealing with a number of appeals under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against the decision of the Official Liquidator rejecting the claims of the appellants to various sums of moneys to which they claim to be entitled by reason of termination of their services under the Bank of China (in liquidation). The facts are shortly as follows: The Bank of China carried on business in India. Sometime in May, 1962 the Reserve Bank of India revoked the license given to it for doing foreign exchange business in India, thereby making it impossible for it to act as an exchange bank. On the 14th June, 1962 the Bank of China issued a notice under paragraph 522(6) of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award, intimating its intention to effect retrenchment of staff with regard to certain employees on the ground that consequent upon revocation by the Reserve Bank of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ1153Cal
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated March 8, 2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 10214(W) of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the respondents herein was allowed.2. The writ petitioners were appointed by the Councillors in a meeting held on September 26, 1997 in terms of Resolution No. 36 which reads thus:'With the consent of all the Councillors present in the meeting the matter of engagement of field personnel @ 2 per Ward as per instruction of the C.V.B. is discussed. It is resolved that 42 field. personnel i.e. @2 per Ward be engaged for assessment work on daily rated basis.'3. Pursuant to the said resolution they had been issued with an offer of appointment, a sample copy whereof is Memo No. 2772/CA/42 dated September 9, 1997 which reads thus:'You have been selected to work as field Assistant/Helper in connection with the field survey work to be undertaken by the C.V.B., West Bengal from September 21, 1997 for valuation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR752],(2005)ILLJ1165Cal
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. Two company applications being C.A. No. 136 of 1996 and C.A. No. 488 of 2002 arising out of a company petition being C.P. No. 229 of 1987 are the subject matter of consideration in an analogous hearing.2. The earlier company application was made by 37 alleged workmen individually making the Official Liquidator, one Champdany Industries Limited, and two trade unions being Shalimar Rope Works Staff and Workers Association and Shalimar Rope Workers Majdoor Union as party respondents therein. They have applied to get an appropriate order of setting aside and/or modification of certain clauses of Memorandum of Settlement and/or agreement dated May 7, 1993 alternatively setting aside and/or modification of the entire Memorandum of Settlement with further alternative to enter into a Memorandum of Settlement and/or agreement afresh. They have further applied for variation or modification of the orders dated September 4, 1992 and May 15, 1993 to make it in consonance wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2005(2)CHN616,(2005)IIILLJ297Cal
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.The Background:1. In this case the workmen, the Telex Operators, claimed that they were entitled to special allowance at the same rate that was allowed to the employees operating Advanced Ledger Posting Machines (ALPM) and Advanced Electronic Accounting Machines (AEAM). The dispute raised by the Union being referred to the learned Tribunal resulted into an award granting the relief of special allowance at the same rate available to the operators of ALPM and AEAM. By reason of the award, the attempt of the Management to rectify the alleged mistake of allowing the special allowance at the rate available to the other categories of employees operating ALPM and AEAM in terms of the Settlement dated 29th of March, 1987, Annexure 'P-1' at page 3d of the application, to the Telex Operators entitled to the special allowance as contemplated in paragraph 5.2 of Chapter V of the First Bipartite Settlement, was set at naught.1.1. This was challenged before this Court in a writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2005(4)CHN31,[2005(106)FLR20],(2005)IIILLJ277Cal
D.K. Seth, J.1. An award dated November 15, 1999 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in Reference No. 6 of 1998, was assailed in the writ petition being W.P. No. 1786 (W) of 2000, since beer dismissed by the learned single Judge by an order dated June 17, 2001 declining to interfere with the award on the grounds recorded therein, has since been challenged in this appeal.The Appellants' Submission:2. A reference was made with regard to the action of the management in not regularizing the 540 Muster Roll Workers and denying them equal pay for equal work and other facilities, which the regular workmen were enjoying. This was sought to be defended by Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Farakka Barrage Project on two-fold grounds First that no industrial dispute could be maintained against the management of Farakka Barrage Project since the management discharged sovereign function in the distribution or sharing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal690,63CWN782,(1959)IILLJ603Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is a petition by Shree Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the award of the Second Industrial Tribunal, made on the 24th June, 1957 on the point of reference whether the dismissal of Shri Puranmal koyal was justified and, if so, to what relief was he entitled. 2. The challenge to the award is made on a new and important point. The original order of reference by the Government was made on the 19th April, 1956 to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. While the reference was pending before the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, the Government, by an order dated the 9th March, 1957. withdrew the reference from the Fifth Industrial Tribunal and referred the same dispute on the same point to the Second Industrial Tribunal. The petitioners challenge this order of the 9th March, 1957, withdrawing the reference from the Fifth Industrial Tribunal and making a reference to the Second Indus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal225
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. The conclusions of the Sixth Industrial Tribunal on three specific issues are challenged by the petitioners in this case under Article 220 of the Constitution. The Tribunal gave its award on 22-2-1957 on as many as seven different issues referred to it by the Government order dated 5-9-1956. No complaint is made in this application on the first four issues as determined by the Tribunal.2. The three issues upon which the Tribunal's decision is attacked on this application are (1) the Pujah Bonus; (2) the amendments of the Standing Orders and (3) whether the workers of the dyeing section are entitled to any relief for the transfer of the dyeing section and it they are entitled to the same terms of employment under the lease holder.3. On the first point of bonus, it will be useful at the outset to state the findings of the Tribunal. The Union claimed bonus as one of the conditions of service of the workers. The petitioners case was that bonus was granted out of bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2010)ILLJ496Cal
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Challenging the judgment and order dated February 18, 2005 passed by learned trial Judge in W.P. No. 21368 (W)/1999 this appeal has been preferred. By the impugned judgment under appeal, writ application was dismissed on merit passed by the learned trial Judge.2. The writ petitioner, Food Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as 'FCI', is appellant before us. FCI challenged the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol dated June 9, 1999 whereby the Tribunal answered the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, namely, 'whether the demand of Durgapur Casual Workers' Union for absorption of 49 casual workmen as per list enclosed by the management, FCI, Durgapur is justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to?', in the. affirmative in favour of the workmen directing' the 49 casual workmen to absorb by the management within 3 months from the date of enforceability of the award on the sole ground that continued casua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)1CALLT297(HC),[1998(79)FLR406],(1998)IIILLJ777Cal
S.K. Sen, J.1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has challenged an Award passed by the industrial Tribunal (torn) dated 22nd November, 1991 wherein the Tribunal has (torn) a finding that the petitioner was mainly employed (torn) managerial or administrative capacity and was not (torn) workman and as such the Government order of reference (torn) not maintainable in law.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and the Tribunal committed an apparent error in making the aforesaid finding.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Report Clerk on 4th December, 1974 by M/s. Birla Jute industries Ltd, respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the said Company) in its Bailey Jute Mills, Unit in the section (Broad Loom) on a salary of Rs. 325/-permonth.4. It has also been alleged in the petition that the petitioner was not given any letter of appointment at the time of his appointment or the...
Tag this Judgment!