Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ961Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. In both these writ petitions a common question of law about the applicability of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 to the employees of the petitioner Bank, is involved and, therefore, I have considered it proper to dispose them of by a common order.2. Briefly stated the facts of Writ Petition No. 4088/89 are that the non-petitioner No. 2 filed an application before the Prescribed Authority, Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 for Sikar District on March 30, 1989 alleging that he was in the employment of the Sikar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner Bank'), w.e.f. January 1, 1979. He had remained posted as Manager and there was no complaint against his work. He was removed from service on March 8, 1989 without any notice and without payment of salary in lieu of notice. No enquiry was held against him before termination of service and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. He c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(1)WLC452; 1992(1)WLN500
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. In both these writ petitions a common question of law about the applicability of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 to the employees of the petitioner Bank, is involved and, therefore, I have considered it proper to dispose them of by a common order.2. Briefly stated the facts of Writ Petition No. 4088/89 are that the non-petitioner No. 2 filed an application before the Prescribed Authority, Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment, Act, 1958 for Sikar District on 30-3-89 alleging that he was in the employment of the Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner Bank'), w.e.f. 1-1-79. He had remained posted as Manager and there was no complaint against his work. He was removed from service on 8-3-89 without any notice and without payment of salary in lieu of notice. No enquiry was held against him before termination of service and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. He claimed that the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR551]; (1995)IILLJ1064Raj; 1995(2)WLC1; 1995(1)WLN300
Anshuman Singh. J. 1. Learned Single Judge at the time of admission of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3011/90 Gopi Lal Teli v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., after hearing the counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of alternative remedy, referred the following question for determination by a Larger Bench of more than three Judges: 'Whether a writ petition for violation of the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or violation of the principles of natural justice, should be directly entertained as a matter of course, ignoring the statutory remedy provided by that Act? On the reference made by the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble the Chief Justice Constituted Larger Bench consisting of five senior Judges of this court and in pursuance of the said order, the question referred by the learned Single Judge came up for consideration before us. 2. Before we proceed to conside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(4)WLC495; 2001(3)WLN420
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties. Matter has come up for orders on application moved by the learned counsel for the respondent for clarification of the order passed on application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, regarding payment to be made to the respondent who has been reinstated, after order dated 11.5.1995, was made by the Court directing the petitioner to pay last drawn wages to workman in terms of section 17-B of the Act.(2). However, at the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition itself has been heard.(3). The respondent-Mohammed Ali, who was employed as a Pump Driver on 14.9.88 on daily wages of Rs. 25/-per day, aggrieved with termination of his service on 1.7.90, raised an industrial dispute. The said workman was employed by the Principal Dungar College, Bikaner, for discharing the duties of the College. However, he was being paid from the Students Funds.(4). Two fold arguments have been raised : firstly : he has volu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(3)WLN326
ORDERBalia, J. (1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The petitioner challenges the award dt. 15.10.99 (Annexure- 9) to the extent it has refused the reinstatement after finding the retrenchment of the petitioner by the respondent-employer was in violation of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') and not valid and has granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 90,000/- in all as the compensation in lieu of reinstatement. (3). In the first instance learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by catena of decision of Supreme Court law has been well settled that on finding retrenchment to be invalid in non-compliance of any provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act of 1947, the reinstatement is necessary consequence but the matter of grant of back wages may be within the discretion of adjudicating Tribunal and therefore the Labour Court was patently in error In denying the reinstatement on the basis of decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Deve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj20; (1959)ILLJ75Raj
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are three applications for issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Industrial Tribunal at Jaipur.2. We propose to decide them by one judgment as the points raised to them are common. It seems that disputes are going on between Messrs. Duduwala and Company on the one hand and their employees on the other, represented by Khan Mazdoor Congress, Bhilwara, a registered union of workers.In one of the cases the dispute was referred to the Tribunal on the 16th of June 1956, in the other on the 25th of August 1956 and in the third on the 4th of September 1956. Soon after the parties had appeared before the Industrial Tribunal, applications were made both on behalf of the employers and the Union for appearance through certain representatives.The Union applied for appearance through Shri R. P. Ladha, a practising, advocate. The case of the Union was based on Section 36(1)(b)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Shri R....
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 : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ1098Raj; 1992(3)WLC96; 1992(1)WLN541
Balia, J.1. This Special Appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3611/1988 on 25th January 1991 reported in 1992 II CLR 552.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Lake Palace Hotel and Motel (Pvt.) Ltd., Udaipur owns the Lake Palace Hotel situated at Udaipur. Respondent Ranjit Singh was employed as Steward-cum-Dining Supervisor in the services of the above named Hotel drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 926.85 when his services were terminated by order dated 13th August, 1983. Aggrieved with the termination order, the respondent approached prescribed Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act., Udaipur by making a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, hereinafter called as 'the Shop Act'. A preliminary objection was raised before the Prescribed Authority about its jurisdiction to entertain th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj33; (1967)ILLJ270Raj
Kan Singh, J.1. These are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Kendriya Sarvodaya Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jaipur, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Sangh', by which the Sangh questions the validity of two awards given by the Industrial Tribunal, Ra.jasthan, Jaipur, holding that the termination of the services of Sangh's employees; Shri Ram Swarup Mathur in the one case and Shri Jata Shankar in the other, were illegal and unjustified and in consequence awarding compensation to both of them, though their reinstatement was not ordered The Government made two identical references to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at the instance of Saranjan Udyog Karamchari Union, Jaipur As the two writ petitions raise some common questions of law, they can conveniently be disposed of together2. We may first advert to the facts in Shri Jata Shankar's case. The Sangh was a Co-operative Society registered under the Rajas-than ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ723Raj; 1997(3)WLC440; 1997(1)WLN613
J.C. Verma, J. 1. The only argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as 'the institute'), tor challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court cum Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter called the Industrial Tribunal) passed on April 29, 1989 vide Annex. P. 1 in Industrial Reference No. 16/1986 between the General Secretary of the Arid Zone Employees' Union, Jodhpur v. Director, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, is that the State Government was not authorised to refer the demand notice containing four demands of the workers to the Industrial Tribunal for the reason that the reference could only be made by the Central Government under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (called hereinafter as 'the Act of 1947'). 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Central Government was the appropriate Government in the present case and, therefore, any refe...
Tag this Judgment!