Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2000(84)FLR92],(2000)ILLJ903Cal
P.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioners inter alia praying for the following relief:-(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari do issue calling upon the respondent Authorities and each of them to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court the records of the case culminating in the order dated January 5, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 forwarded by the said letter dated January 14, 1999 by the respondent No. 3 so that upon consideration thereof the same may be quashed and conscionable justice may be rendered to the petitioner.(b) A writ of or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them to -(i) Forthwith rescind, revoke, withdraw or cancel the aforesaid order dated January 5, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 and forwarded to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3.(ii) Grant permission to the petitioner No. 1 to implement the scheme of lay-off as proposed in its application before the respondent No. 2. (c) Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT170(HC),1999LabIC3796,(1999)IILLJ899Cal
S.B. Sinha, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant has questioned ajudgment and order dated 10.9.97, passed by a lea1rned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein questioning an order dated 17.7.97 passed by the 5th industrial Tribunal. West Bengal in Case No. VIII-143/89, was set aside.2, The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.A reference dated 9.5.89 was made by the State of West Bengal, being the appropriate Government in terms of section 10(1) of the industrial Disputes Act, in relation to the following issues:1. Wages for the period from 26.4.84 to 4.7.84. 2. Shift ditty for despatch section workmen. 3. Salary for 5.7.84 4. Encashable earned leave for 1985.The parties, after the said reference had been made, filed their respective written statements. Allegedly, the workmen had been relying upon the documents beyond their pleadings. An objection was raised by the respondent No. 1 herein and by an order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT107(HC)
S. B. Sinha. J. 1. The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, questioned an order of punishment imposed upon him to quash order dated 10.7.92 and 29.1.93 as contained in annexure 'C' and 'G' respectively to the writ petition.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner at all material times was working as a Head Constable in the 12th Battalion of the Border Security Force. He was charge sheeted on two charges as would appear from the charge sheet which is contained in annexure 'G' to the writ application and read as follows:-- '1. 'Leaving his picauet without orders from his superior officer in that he, at picauet Bornberia on 10.3.92 left the said picquet at about 2130 hrs. without orders from his superior officer.' 2. An act prejudicial to good order and disciplines of the force in that he, on 10.3.92, while on Naka duty in area village Bornberia withinthe jurisdiction of BOP Bornberia improperly and without authority ordered constable Baldev Singh to op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2000]102CompCas81(Cal),(1999)2CompLJ72(Cal)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals were initially directed against an interim order dated February 6, 1997, passed by a learned single judge of this court in Bajrang Prasad Jalan v. Akshay Nidhi Ltd. (Company Petition No. 447 of 1990). The applicants respondents herein filed an application on February 12, 1990, under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, for certain reliefs against the appellants and other respondents. Upon completion of exchange of affidavits the parties addressed the learned trial judge on the merits of the said application. While the arguments were almost complete learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants respondents offered that the proceedings be held on trial to which exception was taken by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants on the ground that the said respondent had all along been present during the hearing of the proceeding in court and, thus, was aware of the rival contentions of the parties. At that juncture a question arose a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)3CALLT348(HC)
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. I have the privilege to go through the separate but concurring judgments of S.K. Sen, J and S.B.Slnha, J.2. It is indisputable that procedural laws are meant to advance justice and the same must apply to Order 47 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A superior court apart from its power under section 229 read with section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure coupled with its power under Letters Patent as a matter of general policy may frame its procedural rules. This court has framed Original Side Rules as well as Appellate Side Rules of Procedure for civil cases as well as for petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In High Court of Judicature for Rqjasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paltwal, : (1999)ILLJ885SC the Supreme Court has set at rest any controversy as respects power of the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a bench hearing a case. It is pointed out by the Supreme Court that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)2CALLT157(HC),(1999)ILLJ1342Cal
D.P. Kundu, J. 1. This is an application under section 17B of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) preferred by the workman for payment in accordance with the provisions of section 17B of the said Act.2. It is an admitted fact that the workman died on 2.8.1997 and thereafter his legal heirs have been substituted in place and stead of the workman. It is also a fact that the writ proceeding was initiated by the employer in July, 1996.3. By a reference dated 20.8.90 following issue was referred to the Third industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication.'ISSUE Whether termination of service of Shrl RamesWar Jha is Justified? What relief, if any, is the workman entitled to?' 4. The Tribunal by its award dated 6.2.96 passed, inter alia, the following order:'In the result the workman succeeds and he is entitled to get the reliefs as he prayed. The main issue as framed in the order of reference is thus answered in the negative and as such the workman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ1154Cal
ORDEREDthat the applications under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act are allowed on contest. The applicant do get an order for a sum of Rs. 3956.46 p (Rs. 143.52+ Rs. 3812.94= Rs. 3956.46) as stated on the body of this order. The O.P. company is directed to pay off this computed amount to the applicant by February 28, 1997, in default the applicant shall have the liberty to resort to law to realise the said amount.This is my order which will govern both the cases.'7. The relevant portion of the reasons given by the First Labour Court justifying that it had jurisdiction to try the matter is given hereinbelow:' It is his definite case that he performed over time duty but was not paid for the same and hence the instant cases have cropped up. On the other hand in the pleadings it was the case of the O.P. company that the applicant did not perform any overtime duty and nor was he asked to do that. But from evidence of the O.P. W. 1 it becomes crystal clear that the applicant and others were p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)2CALLT60(HC),[1999(81)FLR52],(1999)ILLJ828Cal
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 24.7.96 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in C.R. No. 143 (W) of 1987, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioners was allowed. The writ petitioners/respondents filed the aforementioned writ application claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :'(a) as to why declaratory order should not issue on the respondents, their agents, subordinates and employees namely, the petitioners, are in continuous service with the company, namely, Aluminium Corporation of india Limited, entitling them even after the Aluminium Corporation of india Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Aluminium undertaking) Act, 1981 and to the continuity of service by the payment of notional-gratuity under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; (b) as to why an order in nature of Prohibition should not be issued on the respondents for non exercise of powers under section 4 of the Payment of Gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)2CALLT360(HC)
1. The Court: The writ petitioners are the owners of premises No. 14 Hare Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises'). The premises consists of an area of 10 Collahs 7 Chittacks 15 Sq. ft. of land and a three storied building standing thereon situate In BED Bag in close proximity to Telephone Bhawan the GPO and the Reserve Bank of India and other important office complexes. On or about 2.3.44 the entire second floor of the said premises was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act which came into effect from 2.3.42 at the rate of occupation charges of the said floor of Rs. 272 per month payable according to English Calendar month. The same was subsequently followed to be continued by a requisition order under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 and the same is under the possession of the Department of the State Government. In the said occupied portion of the second floor of the premises. West Bengal Cernmic Develop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR814],(1998)ILLJ1116Cal
Prabha Shankar Mishra, C.J. 1. Muster roll workers under Divisional Forest Officer, East Midnapore Division, who have worked continuously for periods ranging from 3 years to 10 years have moved this Court alleging inter alia, that although for all purposes, they are permanent employees, they have not been given regular appointments and the benefits which regular and permanent employees must receive. 2. Holding on the basis of the principle that the casual workers who have been appointed against perennial job and who have discharged functions for more than 240 days in a year, are entitled to be regularised in the normal vacancies, learned single Judge has directed the respondents-appellants to absorb the writ petitioners-respondents in the regular vacancy of Group D posts within six months from the date of communication of the order. The learned single Judge, for the said purpose, has further ordered as follows: 'The Finance Department, Government of West Bengal shall sanction the creat...
Tag this Judgment!