Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj227; (1968)IILLJ398Raj
ORDERKan Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Viney Kumar Majoo and say it he questions the validity of an order dated 8-9-67 (Ex. 6 on record) passed by the Chief Engineer Project, Public Works Department (B. & R.), Rajasthan, retrenching certain Engineering Subordinates including the petitioner. In this order the petitioner's name occurs at serial No. 3. The relevant facts emerging from the writ petition are briefly these: 2. Petitioner was an Engineering Graduate having obtained his degree in the year 1966. He came to be appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (B and R). Project Organisation under an order of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (B and R) Rajasthan dated 25-7-66. He was appointed in the grade of Rs. 120-5-155-10-185-205-10-225 EB 22B 10-285-335-124-385. He was given a starting salary of Rs. 225/- per month and he joined the appointment on 28th October, 1966. Being a Junior Engineer the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2002)IVLLJ809Raj; 2001(1)WLC618
Madan, J. 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.4.1999 of the Addt. District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, whereby he quashed order dated 4.3.1999 of the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Jaipur City (West), who dismissed the 2nd application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff-respondent.(2). Manav Hitkari Sangh petitioner (defendant) is a charitable society duly registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. As per its alms and objects, the petitioner Society, has benevolent object so as to render services to the mankind more particularly in the field of homeopathic medicine. It is totally a privatesociety wholly dependent on the donation and funds received from the donors and the patients. It has one clinic at New Colony Jaipur in a rented premises and another one of at Shyam Nagar Jaipur. It has its own bye laws which contemplate powers of management & administration vested in the executive committee which has corresponding powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)IIILLJ1144Raj; 1995(3)WLC462
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner, who was Conductor with the respondent corporation, has challenged the order by which he was removed from service for certain charges of misconduct. He has also challenged the appellate order.2. On March 30, 1978 he was chargesheeted and suspended for three charges. During three occasions on which few passengers were found without ticket and no entry was made by the Conductor in the Way Bill and the bus was allowed to proceed without handing over the Way Bill to the driver. Each of the charges, therefore, was permitting passengers to travel without ticket and not writing the Way Bill and not handing it over to the driver.3. On April 10, 1978, the petitioner filed his reply to these charges. In relation to the first Charge it was said that it was due to the error of the passenger that the ticket was not given to him and he was actually penalised. It cannot, therefore, be said that he was allowed to travel without ticket In relation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1965Raj213; (1965)IILLJ83Raj
Dave, C.J. 1. The petitioner, who has filed the present writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office at Bijaynagar, Ajmer District. 2. Respondent No. 1, who is the only contesting party, is a representative body of the workers of the petitioner-company. On 12th March, 1953 a notice was issued by the company to the effect that on account of unremunerative working of the Mill and recurring continuous losses, the mill would be closed from 1st April, 1953 and in pursuance of the said notice, it was actually closed on 1st April, 1953. It continued to remain closed till 14th May, 1954. It started working again on 15th May, 1954 and continued working upto 23rd June 1957, On 24th June 1957 it was closed again. Then, it resumed work on 3rd March 1958. The petitioner retrenched some workers on 30th April 1958 and others on 11th May 1958. On 23rd June 1958, the mill w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1642; 2006(3)WLC1
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners- Institution seeks to challenge the order dated 1.8.1994 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal) in case No. 127/94 whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners-Institution to fill the vacant post of Library LDC by promoting respondent No. 3 Beni Prasad Saini, who is class-IV employee.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Tribunal for seeking direction for filling the post of Library LDC by promoting him and further the advertisement issued for filling the same be quashed. It has also been prayed that in case during pendency of the appeal, the post is filled in pursuance to the said advertisement, then the same be declared illegal and contrary to law. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 3 has submitted that he is class-IV employee in Agrawal College since 25 years having qual...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1964Raj4; (1963)ILLJ388Raj
Ranawat, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The Management of the Railway Employees' Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a party to an industrial dispute which is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, in connection with the removal of Shri Kanraj Mehta and withholding grade increments in cases of Achleshwar Sharma, V. D. Sharma and G. S. Saxena. The dispute was referred by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act on an application of the Secretary, Northern Railway Mazdoor Union, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Union).The petitioner came to this Court by way of a writ petition in the case of Management of the Railway Employees' Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. The Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, ILR (1962) 12 Raj 458, and challenged the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to entertain the said reference on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR782]; (2002)IILLJ971Raj
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Mr. K.R. Choudhary appears for respondent No. 3. Thus, the service is complete.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing, the writ petition is erroneous because it has not taken into consideration the fact that an officer was not supposed to know the identity of the person, only for the purpose of putting his signature on the document alleged to be forged and not issued by the Department.4. The appeal has arisen in the circumstance that respondent No. 3 was employed by the appellants between June 4, 1985 to November 11, 1987. Thereafter his services were terminated by an innocuous order. The order was subjected to adjudication by way of industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Jodhpur.5. The contention of the respondent-workman was that his services have been terminated without giving any notice and compensation and without affording ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991ACJ230; AIR1991Raj29; 1990(1)WLN665
Milap Chandra, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara dated April 29, 1988 by which the claimant-respondents have been awarded Rs. l,19,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per month. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. On December 10, 1982, the deceased Manilal (husband of the respondent No. 2, father of the respondents Nos. 3,4 and 5 and brother of the respondent No. 1), 28 years old, was travelling as a passenger in Bus No. RRM 6708 belonging to the appellant No. 1. He was going from Banswara to Bhrinthor. At about 7.30 p.m., the bus reached at Bhrintor. His 'dhoti' got stuck with the door of the bus while he was getting down therefrom and the bus started before the 'dhoti'could be unfastened. As a result thereof, he was dragged for some distance and received serious injuries and died on the spot. He was earning Rs. 25-30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1965Raj11; [1965(10)FLR154]
Bhandari, J.1. This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of Bijai Cotton Mills Ltd., Bijainagar which carries on the business of manufacturing yarn at Bijainagar, Tehsil Beawar, which formed part of the State of Ajmer-Merwara before its merger in Rajasthan in 1956.2. Sometime in the year 1950 a dispute arose between the petitioner and its workmen regarding the scale of wages being paid to the workmen. The contention of the workmen was that it was much below the subsistence level. The Government of Ajmer referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(15) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These proceedings after a prolonged trial ended on the 7th June 1955 in an award by Mr. C. Jacob, who was appointed as the Tribunal. In substance the award fixed the basic minimum wages to be paid to all categories of workmen as specified in the enclosure to the award. The workmen were further held entitled to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(1)WLC216; 1995(2)WLN534
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The question of law which has been raised in this writ petition is as to whether the Cattle Feed Plant which is a unit, of Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. and which is being run by the State Government for the purpose of meeting out need of cattle feed falls within the definition of 'industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act')? The case of the petitioner in short is that he was appointed on 5.5.88 by the respondent No. 2 on the post of Chemist and the petitioner joined his services with effect from 6.5.88 at Nadbai with respondent No. 3 It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner worked on the said post continuously from 6.5.88 to 2.1.89 without any break and thus worked for more than 240 days. The salary of the petitioner for December, 1988 and 2 days of January, 1989 was still outstanding as on date of the filling of th...
Tag this Judgment!