Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal310,67CWN232,[1963(6)FLR45]
B.N. Banerjee, J. 1. The three petitioners and respondents Nos. 7 to 14 are Chartered Accountants and carry on business in partnership under the name and style of Price Waterhouse Peat and Co., inter alia, at No. B/4, Gillander House, in the town of Calcutta, Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, N.R. Mookherjee and S. Kanungo and respondent No. 5, Prantosh Bakshi, are employees under the partnership Price Waterhouse Peat and Co. 2. There arose a dispute between the partnership and the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 represented by their trade union, firstly, over the offer of payment of bonus at reduced rate (which is referred to in the petition as an offer o ex gratia payment to respondent NOS. 3 and 4) and, secondly, over the discharge of respondent 'No. 5 on the ground of absence from office without leave. The dispute was ultimately referred by the respondent State Government to the First Industrial Tribunal foradjudication. The issues referred to the Tribunal were: (1) Whether deduction of bonus gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1964Cal102
Mitter, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order making absolute Rule directing the Second Labour Court to hear and determine an application presented to it under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The matter arises thus: By an award of the Fifth industrial Tribunal published on September 19, 1959 forty one persons, the petitioners before this Court, who had been dismissed from service by the two respondent companies were directed to be reinstated in service and held entitled to half their salary for the entire period from October 2, 1953 to the date of their actual return to duty after the award. The respondent companies appealed unsuccessfully first to the Appellate Tribunal and then to the Supreme Court. Orders for stay of operation of the award obtained by them during the pendency of the appeals were ultimately vacated on October 15, 1957. According to the petitioners they had offered to resume their duties immediately after the publication of the award of the Fifth In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR814],(1998)ILLJ1116Cal
Prabha Shankar Mishra, C.J. 1. Muster roll workers under Divisional Forest Officer, East Midnapore Division, who have worked continuously for periods ranging from 3 years to 10 years have moved this Court alleging inter alia, that although for all purposes, they are permanent employees, they have not been given regular appointments and the benefits which regular and permanent employees must receive. 2. Holding on the basis of the principle that the casual workers who have been appointed against perennial job and who have discharged functions for more than 240 days in a year, are entitled to be regularised in the normal vacancies, learned single Judge has directed the respondents-appellants to absorb the writ petitioners-respondents in the regular vacancy of Group D posts within six months from the date of communication of the order. The learned single Judge, for the said purpose, has further ordered as follows: 'The Finance Department, Government of West Bengal shall sanction the creat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal556,64CWN708,[1960(1)FLR487],(1961)IILLJ23Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the West Bengal Metal Workers Union under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal made on the 3rd December, 1957 and published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 26th December, 1957.2. The only point for decision is whether Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act is retrospective or not. There is no decision on this particular section although there are decisions on the other sections in Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act containing Sections 25A to 25J.3. The workmen in this case were retrenched between the 15th and 23rd of July, 1952, when Section 25-H was not in operation. The counter-part of Section 25-H appears first in an ordinance dated the 24th February, 1953 and was subsequently embodied in this Section 25-H of the Act on 24-10-1953. The point now is that from January 1954, the Company started taking some of these retrenched people and the question arises w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ1154Cal
ORDEREDthat the applications under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act are allowed on contest. The applicant do get an order for a sum of Rs. 3956.46 p (Rs. 143.52+ Rs. 3812.94= Rs. 3956.46) as stated on the body of this order. The O.P. company is directed to pay off this computed amount to the applicant by February 28, 1997, in default the applicant shall have the liberty to resort to law to realise the said amount.This is my order which will govern both the cases.'7. The relevant portion of the reasons given by the First Labour Court justifying that it had jurisdiction to try the matter is given hereinbelow:' It is his definite case that he performed over time duty but was not paid for the same and hence the instant cases have cropped up. On the other hand in the pleadings it was the case of the O.P. company that the applicant did not perform any overtime duty and nor was he asked to do that. But from evidence of the O.P. W. 1 it becomes crystal clear that the applicant and others were p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT594(HC),2000(1)CHN21,[2000(85)FLR585],(2000)ILLJ1015Cal
S.N. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. Respondents herein, all being contract labourers In the department of Blast Furnace Rellnlng (for short BFL) under the appellant No.2 filed a writ appllcation marked as Matter No. 3770 of 1994 alleging that although the Slate Government by Its notification dated 22nd February, 1982 prohibited the employment of contract labour In any process or operation in the jobs specified therein including BFL employed by M/s Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP) with effect from 1.3.82 by issuing notification under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 they have not been absorbed as workmen under the appellant and have been still working as contract labours in the same department It is further alleged that petitioners were asked to appear before the Selection Committee on different dates for the post of unskilled workers and were required to submit application forms duly filed in with necessary documents on or before 19.3.1985 and since then a seri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT170(HC),1999LabIC3796,(1999)IILLJ899Cal
S.B. Sinha, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant has questioned ajudgment and order dated 10.9.97, passed by a lea1rned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein questioning an order dated 17.7.97 passed by the 5th industrial Tribunal. West Bengal in Case No. VIII-143/89, was set aside.2, The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.A reference dated 9.5.89 was made by the State of West Bengal, being the appropriate Government in terms of section 10(1) of the industrial Disputes Act, in relation to the following issues:1. Wages for the period from 26.4.84 to 4.7.84. 2. Shift ditty for despatch section workmen. 3. Salary for 5.7.84 4. Encashable earned leave for 1985.The parties, after the said reference had been made, filed their respective written statements. Allegedly, the workmen had been relying upon the documents beyond their pleadings. An objection was raised by the respondent No. 1 herein and by an order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)3CALLT348(HC)
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. I have the privilege to go through the separate but concurring judgments of S.K. Sen, J and S.B.Slnha, J.2. It is indisputable that procedural laws are meant to advance justice and the same must apply to Order 47 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A superior court apart from its power under section 229 read with section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure coupled with its power under Letters Patent as a matter of general policy may frame its procedural rules. This court has framed Original Side Rules as well as Appellate Side Rules of Procedure for civil cases as well as for petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In High Court of Judicature for Rqjasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paltwal, : (1999)ILLJ885SC the Supreme Court has set at rest any controversy as respects power of the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a bench hearing a case. It is pointed out by the Supreme Court that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1997Cal308
ORDER1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'a) Declaration that Section 11B of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 introduced by the Securities Laws amendment Act, 1995 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Companies act, 1956 and is void in so far as it seeks to empower the Securities and Exchange Board of India to impose penalties on companies and bodies corporate to increase their capital by further issue of shares; b) A writ of an/or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to withdraw, recall, recall, rescind and cancel the said order dated February 11,1997 and to forbear and refrain from giving any effect or further effect thereto in any manner whatsoever; c) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and forthwith sent to this Hob'ble Court its entire records culminating in the order dated February 11,1997 so that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Both admiralty suits are actions in rem directed against the same vessel, MV Vinashin Sky. The plaintiffs are different. There are several applications which have been listed and heard. The principal issue raised in both suits is by one Vietnam Shipbuilding Industry Group though the legal status of such entity is unclear and, but for an appellate court order, such entity may not have had a right of audience in the second suit. In the opening paragraph of GA No. 3476 of 2009, which is a petition for dismissal and/or rejection of the plaint relating to the earlier suit, the Vietnamese petitioner has not elaborated on its legal status though the petitioner in claiming that one Vinashin Ocean Shipping Company Ltd is its wholly owned subsidiary, has given an impression that the petitioner is probably a company. The petitioner claims to be a State-owned enterprise of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In the translated version of its certificate of business registration...
Tag this Judgment!