Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ228
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Tozhilalar Shemanala Padukappu Union, represented by its President, the petitioner in W.P. No 2756 of 1981, is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in this judgment as they stood arrayed in the writ petition. A dispute arose in 1979 between the second respondent Mills, hereinafter referred to as the Mills, and its workmen on the question of bonus for the year 1978-79. The Mills had paid an advance bonus at 20 per cent. of the earnings to its workmen. A settlement was reached in the course of conciliation on 18th November, 1980 under section. 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, under which it was agreed that the bonus could be only at 12 par cent and the Mills were conferred the right to recover the excess of bonus paid in advance. This settlement was arrived at before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1980Cal282,85CWN8
Banerjee, J.1. These appeals are directed against an order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge making the rule absolute obtained by Pashok Tea Company Limited. The case made out by the petitioner Pashok Tea Company Ltd., is that on 12th October, 1976 two letters were received by the petitioner, each dated the 13th October, 1976, one in respect of the Pashok Tea Estate and the other in respect of Looksan Tea Estate addressed to the Company by the Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. The said two letters are identical in nature except as to the name of the Tea Garden and the contents of the letters concerning the Pashok Tea Estate are as follows:--'By an order dated 11th October, 1976 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated llth October, 1976 the Government of India has authorised the Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd., of 225-E, Acharya Jagadish Chandra BOMRoad, Calcutta-20 being the authorised person to take over the management of the above unit on the terms and condit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker122; 2005(1)KLT507
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These Writ Appeals are preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in a matter arising under the Tea Act. W.A. No. 1202/2004 is filed by the Union of India whereas W.A.No.1334/2004 is filed by one of the promoters. At this stage, all the learned counsel have requested the Court to hear and dispose of the Writ Appeals themselves which lies in a narrow compass. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from W.A.1202/2004.2. Only one argument has been advanced by Sri.V.T.Gopalan, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India pointing out the imposition made by the learned Single Judge in his order of 5th January, 2004 in O.P.No.32613/2002, which is to the following effect: 'If the revival of the functioning of High Range Tea Estates of M/s. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd., is not possible, then the Union of India shall take over such estates of the said Company as contemplated by law within six months from the said date of judgment'. Mr.V.T.Gopalan submi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1996Delhi172; [1996]85CompCas230(Delhi)
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed chfallenging the order dated 19th December, 1994 of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short the Appellate Authority) dismissing the two separate appeals of the petitioners by a common judgment; substantially confirming the order dated 6/16 June, 1994 passed by the Board forIndustrial and Financial Reconstruction 'BIFR' for short). Both the authorities, namely, the BIFR and the Appellate Authority, have been constituted under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA' or 'Act', for short) under which proceedings had been held and impugned orders made. The sick industrial company, as defined under clause (o) of Section 3 of the SICA, in the present case is Andhra Cement Limited (ACL). Petition bearing No. 5184/94 has been filed by Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. and five other petitioners constitutin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1984(16)ELT100(AP)
Ramachandra Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners who produce jute products challenge the validity of imposition of cess on jute yarn produced by their mills. 2. The cess is levied under the provisions of Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). This Act is enacted to provide for development and regulation of certain industries. Under Section 2, it is declared that it is expedient in public interest that the Union should take under its control the industries specified in the First Schedule. Under Section 3(i), 'Scheduled industry' means any of the industries specified in the First Schedule. The First Schedule to the Act contains 38 industries and the preamble to the First Schedule reads : 'Any industry engaged in the manufacture or production of any of the articles mentioned under each of the following headings or sub-headings.' Item 23, which deals with textiles reads as follows : '23. Textiles (includin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1813; 1984(32)BLJR393; (1984)3CompLJ249(SC); [1984(49)FLR401]; 1986LabIC382; (1984)IILLJ507SC; 1984(2)SCALE406; 1984(Supp)SCC443; [1985]1SCR751; 1985(17)LC185(SC)
Desai, J.1. Bonus has a tantalizing influence on industrial workers. They look forward to it with a craving the degree of which is immeasurable. And for the employees any form of bonus has such a tremendous attraction that the time honoured concept of its being a profit sharing formula to fill in the gap between the fair wage and the living wage in the case of industrial workmen has been for all practical purposes displaced by the Payment of Bonus Act and bonus telescoping into Government service where there being no production and therefore it cannot be an incentive for higher production. And yet the management of The Model Mills, Nagpur (Employer for short) has most successfully thwarted the meagre expectation of minimum bonus to its workmen for full two decades.2. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, appellant herein, ('Union' for short) as an approved Union made four independent references Under Section 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ('Act' for short) against Model Mills...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1992]73CompCas63(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J. 1. Company Petition No. 59 of 1990 was filed by Ucal Fuel Systems Limited, having its registered office at No. 118, Anna Salai, Madras 2, and Company petition No. 60 of 1990 was filed by Suncarb Private Limited, having its registered office at No. 8, Haddows Road, madras-6. Both the company petitions were filed under sections 392 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', praying for according sanction to a scheme of amalgamation of the aforesaid two companies. Ucal Fuel Systems Limited is a public limited company and it is the transferee company. Suncarb Private Limited is a private limited company and is the transferor company. The scheme submitted to the court for sanction involves amalgamation of the transferor company with the transferee company and amongst others it involves dissolution without winding up. 2. Suncarb Private Limited, Madras-6, the transferor-company, was incorporated on November 7, 1985, under the provisions of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988AP358
Ramarao, J.1. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1267-68 of 1984 dt. 28-10-1985, these writ petitions have come up for bearing. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court in Nellimerla Jute Mills Ltd. v. Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Madras (1984) 16 ELT 100 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad ., (Calico Mills), Ahmedabad : : 1985(21)ELT633(SC) . 2. The petitioners challenged the levy of cess on jute yarn produced in the process of producing jute products. The cm is levied under S. 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 which provides for levy and collection of cess on all goods manufactured or produced in scheduled industries as may be specified by the Central Government by an order. The proviso thereto restricts the rate of cess to 13 ps. per cent of the value of the goods. In exercise of the powers conferred under S. 9(1) of the Act, the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1988(33)ELT317(AP)
Rama Rao, J. 1. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1267-68 of 1984 dated 28-10-1985, these writ petitions have come up for hearing. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court in Nellimarla Jute Mills Ltd. v. Appellate Collector, Central Excise Madras 1984 (16) E.L.T. 100 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad . (CALICO MILLS), AHMEDABAD - : 1985(21)ELT633(SC) . 2. The petitioners challenged the levy of cess on jute yarn produced in the process of producing jute products. The cess is levied under Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 which provides for levy and collection of cess on all goods manufactured or produced in scheduled industries as may be specified by the Central Government by an order. The proviso thereto restricts the rate of cess to 13 ps. per cent of the value of the goods. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC614; (1980)2SCC441; [1980]2SCR531
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. These batches of Civil Appeals, Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions raise the same question and can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. C.A. No. 1130/76 is by the State. The other Appeals, Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions are by the aggrieved parties.3. For the sake of convenience appellants in Civil, Appeals by Special Leave except the State would be referred as the appellants in this judgment. Similarly the petitioners in Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions will be referred to as petitioners.4. The appellants in Civil Appeals by Special Leave filed writ petitions before the High Court of Allahabad praying for quashing the Excise Commissioner's order dated 18th September, 1974 whereby it was provided that the vend fee be continued to be charged for the wholesale licence dealer of denatured spirit. They also prayed for a direction to the Excise Commissioner to refund the vend fee actually paid by the appellants for a period of three years ...
Tag this Judgment!