Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(2)WLN202
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 7.12.1999 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 2689 of 1994. The petition was directed against the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 10th Jan., 1994 by which the respondent had been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.2. The respondent has been appointed as Class IV Servant in June, 1983 as a daily rated employee. He continued to function as daily rated employee until January, 1986 when he was given regular appointment. However, his services were terminated vide order dated 17.5.1986 inter-alia on the ground that his appointment was not in accordance with law. The respondent has urged that since he was in continuous service for a period of more than one year, the termination amounted to retrenchment which is not in accordance with provisions of Section 25-F and other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore, illegal. An industrial dispute was raised and referred to the Industri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ1066Raj; 1993(1)WLC641
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. An interesting question which arises for determination in this Revision Petition is as to whether jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes or District Court to hear Appeals against an order passed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act of 1936') by a competent authority stands excluded by virtue of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). 2. An application under Section 15(2) of1936 Act was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936, Sawaimadhopur, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,42,874.12. Respondent No. 2 alleged that he has unlawfully been deprived of the benefits flowing from his retrospective promotion to the higher post. 3. After hearing the parties, the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936 passed an order dated August 31, 1990 under Section 15(3) ofthe Act and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,55,278.91 towards wages alongwith one time p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ705Raj; 1998(2)WLC710
Rajendra Saxena, J. 1. This special appeal has been directed against the order dated March 7, 1996 passed by the learned S.B. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 300/1996, whereby appellant's writ petition was dismissed holding that the order dated November 2, 1995 (Ann. 7) passed by the Authority did not give any cause of action to the petitioner to file the writ petition.2. A brief resume of the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal can be recapitulated in a short compass. On April 24, 1995 Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma (Respondent No. 2) filed a claim (Ann.3) under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (briefly the Act) before the Authority (Respondent No. 1) with the averments that he was working as a Working Journalist with the daily Navajyoti News Paper Establishment (briefly establishment), that he retired on March 30, 1993 after serving for a period of 30 years, that the terms and conditions of his service were gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ76Raj; 1993(3)WLC1
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the only prayer which has been made is that the petitioner should be declared entitled to infancy benefit under Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, from March 1, 1977.2. The petitioner-company installed a factory at Parbatsar District Nagpur, for manufacturing synthetic clothes in March, 1977. A notice was issued to the petitioner that the factory established is engaged in a scheduled industry, viz., textiles, under the Act of 1952, and has completed three years from the date of commencement of its production and that it has employed more than 50 employees and as such it was directed to implement the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder with effect from March 1, 1980, as per Annexure 1. Subsequently, superseding the earlier letter dated September 16, 1980, another letter was issued on January 26, 1981, in which the petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1998Raj322; 1998(3)WLC665
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J. 1.By these petitions the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Haryana State Electricity Board, a statutory body to refund the earnest money or security deposit offered by the petitioner in response to the invitation to offer issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board. The petitioner-Company was unable to supply the material on the terms required by the Haryana State Electricity Board and, therefore, no contract of supply materialised. The claim of the petitioner for refund of the earnest money or security deposit not having been acceded to by the Board, the presentpetitions are filed. 2. The former Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. H. Beg observed, while deciding case of Ganpat v. Sashikant, AIR 1978 SC 955, about law of interpretation and precedence. It would be worthwhile to consider in extenso what was observed by his Lordship (at page 956),-- 'If the quest for certainty in law is often baffled, as it is according to Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2005(104)FLR1054]; RLW2005(1)Raj472; 2005(3)SLJ264(Raj); 2005(1)WLC753
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 1.10.2002 against the respondent with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order of direction the judgment and award dtd. 19.2.2002 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 3) be modified to the extent the the petitioner be granted the relief of reinstatement in place of amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/- as awarded by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 3) to the petitioner.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That the petitioner was initially appointed as Beldar with effect from 1.10.82 and she continued in the services upto 15.5.1987.ii) That the services of the petitioner were retrenched w.e.f. 15.5.1987.iii) That further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government made a reference of the dispute to the respondent No. 3 vide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj26
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are six connected applications challenging the validity of Part IV of the Marwar Relief of Indebtedness Act of 1941 (hereinafter called the Act) dealing with Debt Conciliation Boards. We propose to decide these cases by one judgment as the main arguments raised in them are the same.2. Before we mention the grounds on which the validity of the provisions of Part IV of the Act is being attacked, we would like briefly to mention the facts of these six cases.3. In Birdichand's case (No. 46 of 1955), the Debt Conciliation Board has acted under Section 13 (2) of the Act, and discharged the debt.4. In Civil Writs No. 121 of 1955, No. 158 of 1955, No. 36 of 1956, and 74 of 1956 proceedings are going on the application of the debtors under Section 11 of the Act.5. In Civil Writ No. 41 of 1956 also proceedings are going on the application of the debtor under Section 11 of the Act, but in this case besides certain sums due on Bahee Khatas, some amount due on a decree of a Co...
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(70)FLR656]; (1995)ILLJ1032Raj; 1994(2)WLC160; 1994(1)WLN438
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Heard Shri Bhandari and perused the record of the case. 2. This writ petition has been presented before this court on February 23, 1994, and challenge in this writ petition has been made to an order dated December 19,1991, passed by the Labour Court, Kota, in Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 1990. 3. A look at the impugned order passed by the Labour Court shows that by this impugned order it has dismissed the application filed by the employer (petitioner) for setting aside the ex-parte award dated February 6, 1990. Which the Labour Court has passed in Reference Case No. 84 of 1987. The Labour Court found that the explanation offered by the employer for the delay in filing an application was wholly unsatisfactory and, therefore, there was no justificationfor condonation of delay in filing of application. The Labour Court also hetd that the facts have not been correctly mentioned in the application filed on behalf of the employer for setting aside the ex pane award ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)217
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Labour Court Annx. 4 dated 28-1-1984.2. Non-petitioner No. 1 moved the State Government for making a reference challenging his termination by the Assistant Engineer, PWD (B & R), Churu. It is alleged that he continuously worked form 1-7-1979 to 31-12-1979 on the post of Beldar and from 1-1-1980 to 31-12-1980 on the post of Munshi, thus he has completed 240 days in service therefore the Assistant Engineer could not have terminated the services of the non-petitioner No. 1 whithout complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. A reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court and a notice was given to the petitioner on filing the claim petition by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court. Inspite of service of notice on petitioner the petitioner did not appear before Tribunal. Therefore the Labour Court proceeded ex-parte and ultimately the Labour Court fou...
Tag this Judgment!