Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom224; (1965)67BOMLR101; ILR1965Bom394; 1965MhLJ290
Kotval, J.(1) In this Special Civil Application there are challenged two Notification under the Land Acquisition Act whereby the land of the petitioner has been taken by the State of Maharashtra the third respondent before us. On 24th January 1963 a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued under the signature of the Commissioner of Bombay Division, the first respondent before us. Since almost every paragraph of this Notifications argued before us it is worthwhile to reproduce the whole of this Notifications. It runs as follows :-'No. LAQ-B - 7244-B- Whereas it appears to the Commissioner, Bombay Division, that the lands specified in the Schedule herein (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) are needed for a public purpose viz. for development and utilisation of lands as an industrial area. It is hereby notified under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), that the said lands, are needed for the public purpose spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(4)ALLMR372; 2006(4)BomCR21; [2006(111)FLR253]; 2006(5)MhLj277
V.C. Daga, J.1. These two writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are directed against two separate orders dated 15.1.1996 and 17.1.1996 respectively passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur; one rejecting contention of the employer that the strike resorted to by the respondents-employees of the petitioner Bank was illegal and by another order holding that the petitioner-Employer Bank has committed unfair labour practice under Item 8 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act for short) by recruiting employees during the period of legal strike. 2. These petitions involve common question of law based on identical facts; as such both petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Introductory Facts : 3. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, engaged in the business of banking, having its regi...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom100; (1951)53BOMLR373; ILR1952Bom19; (1951)IILLJ1Bom
ORDERShah, J.1. This is a petition filed by G. Claridge & Co., Ltd., Bombay for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the Industrial Tribunal appointed by the State of Bombay under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV [14] of 1947, and against the State of Bombay and two employees of the petitioners who were impleaded on behalf of themselves and all other persona interested in deriving benefit under awards dated September 28, 1949, and September 29, 1950. made by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioners have prayed that this Court do call for records and proceedings of the Industrial Tribunal and do quash the orders and awards dated September 28, 1949, and September 29, 1950, in so far as they relate to hours of work and 'payment for overtime.' Relevant averments made in the petition may be shortly stated.2. The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1918, having their registered office in Bombay. The Government of Bombay by their order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ224MP; 1996(0)MPLJ757
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner/employer has challenged the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'ID Act') where by a direction was made to the petitioner to make the payment of wages for the month of May to July, 1994 amounting to Rs. 28,52,866.80/- to the employees employed in the factory of the petitioner and for that a revenue recovery Certificate was issued to the Collector to recover the said amount from the petitioner.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are thus:The petitioner is a textile industry, which is engaged in manufacture and sale of Cotton Yarn, wherein, about 800 employees are employed. As like other textile units, the petitioner is also passing through a critical financial phase, hence, could not make the payment of electric bills in the year 1988-89. The petitioner avers that an understanding was arrived at between the petitioner and the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H386
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. The petitioners is a Co-operative Society registered under S. 127 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act (Act No. XXII of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is carrying on its business activities at Sonepat under the name and style of the Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Ajit Singh, respondent No. 2, was employed as a Legal Assistant in the Supervisory Grade 'B' vide appointment letter dated 27th September, 1978. The duties which were assigned to him were mainly managerial and administrative in nature though he also performed supervisory duties as well. According to staffing pattern sanctioned by the Haryana State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Chandigarh, which has got a statutory control over the petitioners-Society, the post of Legal Assistant was not sanctioned and, therefore, the Board of Directors in their meeting held on 6th November, 1979 decided to abolish the post at the close of then crushing seasons. Respondent No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(5)BomCR498; (2008)ILLJ1067Bom
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Simple and short but a question of some public and legal importance arises for consideration of the Court in the present writ petition:Whether withdrawal of an earlier application for closure would operate as a bar in law for entertainment of a subsequent application filed within a year of such withdrawal.3. Necessarily, such question has to be answered with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case in which such a question arises. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Nearly 230 workers out of a total of 275 workers of respondent No. 3 are members of the petitioner Union. Century Industries Textiles Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, respondent No. 3 herein, is the employer of these workmen. On 13th February, 2007, the Company made an application to the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC296; (1953)ILLJ733SC; (1953)IMLJ773(SC); [1953]4SCR686
Patanjali Sastri, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decision dated September 22, 1952, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta setting aside an award dated February 9, 1952, made by the Industrial Tribunal constituted to adjudicate on certain disputes between the appellant, the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and its workmen, the respondents represented by their Union. 2. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated. Several other disputes between the parties had already been referred on February 21, 1950 to another Industrial Tribunal presided over by Sri K. S. Campbell-Puri, and during the pendency of the proceedings before the said Tribunal, the Bank alleged that the respondents along with other workmen numbering more than a thousand illegally commenced a general strike on April 18, 1951, in connection with a fresh dispute. Thereupon, notice was issued to the strikers that unless they returned to work by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR93
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. This petition was admitted on 27th June 2005 and the hearing was expedited. Accordingly, it was placed for hearing and final disposal before me.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment/award dated 23rd November, 2004 delivered by Member Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in Complaint (I.T.) No. 2 of 1996. The complaint was filed by the petitioner in the Industrial Tribunal invoking jurisdiction of the said Tribunal under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act for short).3. The petitioner is original complainant and the predecessor of the respondent before this Court, M/s. Sandoz (India) Ltd. was the original respondent/opponent.4. In the complaint, the petitioner alleged that he is an employee of the company since 1983. He is working as Medical Representative at Agra. He was working at that location for several years.5. In para 2 of the complaint, it is stated that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!