Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj584
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Shorn of all technicalities and embellishment, the substantive case of the petitioner is that he was employed in the Municipality as daily rated workman in the year 1991-92. He was paid salary upto August, 1993 and thereafter when he demanded for salary in the regular pay-scale of Peon plus Dearness Allowance, his services were unceremoniously terminated on 2.12.93 without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act that is to say neither one month notice was given before termination nor one month salary as remuneration in lieu of notice was paid to him at the time of retrenchment nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of retrenchment. It was also alleged that the respondents were not obliged to pay their employees minimum pay as per the Minimum Wages Act.3. The respondents admitted the case of retrenchment, however, it was stated that the retrenchment took place w.e.f. 01...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ600Raj; 1994(3)WLC240
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, J. 1. The two petitioners with common name, Jagdish Narain Sharma, have jointly filed this revision petition against the order dated February 7, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, dismissing their appeal against the order dated December 10, 1991 passed by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate (I), Kota (South) refusing to grant temporary injunction in their favour.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Jagdish Narain Sharma son of Shri Bhorelal was employed as Operator in Li-notrone Department of Rajasthan Patrika, Kota and Jagdish Narain son of Ghasi Lal was employed as Pester in the Pesting Department of Rajasthan Patrika, Kota. Both the petitioners were transferred to Bikaner and Udaipur respectively on December 7, 1991 without their consent. The plaintiffs-petitioners alleged that the order of transfer had been passed unlawfully and with mala fide intention of victimising the plaintiffs-petitioners for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1966)ILLJ381Raj
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Board', and is directed against two orders of the Labour Court; the first one dated 9-7-62 (Ex. O), and the second one dated 1-8-62 (Ex. Q), by which, on applications made by respondents Narsanghlal and Dwarka Prasad workmen in an undertaking of the Board, under section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', the Labour Court ordered the Board to pay retrenchment compensation to these respondents. 2. The petitioner Board is a public undertaking for the purpose of generation and supply of electricity in the State of Rajasthan and has its power houses at various places. It maintains a power house at Bikaner also. Prior to the formation of Rajasthan the power house at Bikaner was run by the ex- Bikaner State as a State department and on formation of Rajasthan the State of Rajasthan continued to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1168Raj; 1993(1)WLC415
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Order of reference dated October 6, 1982 (Ex.5) passed by the Government under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) and the award dated September 21, 1984 (Ex.7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, in I.T. Case No. 306/82 have been challenged in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. is an instrumentality of Central Government having its Head Office at Bangalore. It has 18 factories/ units all over India including the one at Ajmer. H.M.T. Shramik Sangh is a registered Trade Union of the employees and is recognised by the Managing Committee of the petitioner company. The respondent No. 2 submitted a charter of demand to the management of the petitioner company and then approached the Conciliation Officer cum Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ajmer. Since the parties could not settle the matter a failure report was subm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ770Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Challenge made in this writ petition is directed against the award dated March 19, 1991 made by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No. CIT 44/87. This award has been passed on a reference of industrial dispute made by the Central Government vide its notification dated July 7, 1987 issued under Section 10(1)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the matter of violation of Sections 25G and 25H allegedly committed by the employer in employing junior persons without considering the case of the workman Shri Gopal Lal Sharma (Respondent No. 2).2. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was employed for a total period of 79 days with the petitioner Bank between May 23, 1985 and August 20, 1985. The appointment was given against a leave vacancy and was for a fixed term and came to an end automatically on the expiry of the period, A dispute was raised by the workman after about two years in the matter of alleged wrongful termination and also regarding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ1219Raj; 1993(1)WLC698
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These three petitions arise out of a common order dated January 5, 1987 passed by the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur in case No. LCC 35/85, Case No. LCC 124/85, Case No. LCC 125/85 filed by 71 employees claiming overtime wages in terms of the Factories Act, 1948. Since the Labour Court has decided all the three applications by the common order and facts of all these writ petitions are by and large common, I am deciding all these writ petitions by a common order.2. The facts which are necessary for deciding controversy involved in these writ petitions are that the petitioner Hindustan Machine Tools is a company owned and controlled by the Government of India. It has its factories at various places in India as well as abroad. One of its factories is at Ajmer which is engaged in manufacture of machine tools. This factory is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 1948 Act). The respondent - workmen filed three separate applications under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ347Raj; 1996(1)WLC418
ORDERA.P. Ravani, C.J.1. On January 10, 1983, JK Synthetics Ltd. declared lay off in all its fourPlants at Kota. Almost simultaneously the Company retrenched 2367 workmen engaged therein. The roots of this litigation are in the aforesaid events. The principal question which has surfaced fordeter-mination by the Court is - Has the Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction to raise and adjudicate issue regarding 'closure' of a pof a plant in absence of any point of dispute in this behalf having been referred to it. This and other related questions are required to be examined and answered by the Court in these matters.2. All these matters pertain to the industrial disputes which arose between J.K. SyntheticsLtd., Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') and its workmen. At the request and withthe consent of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, all these matters have been heardtogether and they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.Factual background3. The company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ1014Raj
Inder Sen Irani, J. 1. In these writ petitions a common question of law has been raised, therefore, all the petitions are decided by one order.2. It has been prayed in these writ petitions to quash the reference order made in each petition and to declare that after passing of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for brevity 'the Act, 1970'), the Government of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to make any reference as made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the I.D. Act') in respect of Contract Labour.3. The factual details and number of annexures are given as mentioned in Writ Petition No. 1250/1980. Briefly stated, the petitioner-company has a unit at Kota, Rajasthan, consisting of two factories known as Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals and Shriram Vinyl & Chemicals Industries which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of PVC, Caustic Soda, Urea etc. The petitioner company employs independent contractors to do jobs which are intermittent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ494Raj
I.S. Israni, J.1. The Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Ajmer has filed this writ petition against the award dated September 21, 1988, passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur, in Reference Case No. ICR 157/83, which was published on December 28, 1988.2. An application dated December 17, 1989 under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 -- the workman, praying that a direction be given to the petitioner to make the payment of last drawn wages to him from the date when the writ proceedings were initiated/filed before this Court.In the application, in para No. 5, it has been stated that the respondent No. 2 - workman, prior to the award, was not employed in any other Industrial Establishment nor he is now gainfully employed in any Industrial Establishment, after the passing of the award till date. An affidavit in support of this application has also been filed.3. A reply to this application has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981(8)ELT772(Raj)
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is a defendant's first appeal from the judgment and decree dated February 29, 1968, passed by the District Judge Pair, whereby the learned District Judge decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,14,520/-, on account of arrears of excise duty for the period commencing from April 1, 1949 to March 31, 1950.2. The defendant Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali, incorporated under the Marwar Companies Act, 1923 has its registered office at Pali, and is running a cloth and yarn Mill at Pali, since 1941. The plaintiff's case is that under the Rajasthan Excise Duties Ordinance, 1949 (XXV of 1949) (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Ordinance') the defendant was liable to pay to the State of Rajasthan excise duty on the stock of manufactured cloth lying in the Mills on April 1, 1949 and also on the cloth manufactured during the period from April 1, 1949 to March 31,1950, at the rates set forth in the Schedule to the Ordinance. It is a...
Tag this Judgment!