Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant93; ILR1996KAR2144; 1996(5)KarLJ616
ORDER1. This writ petition calls in question an order dated 15th Nov. 1994 issued by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Dharwad refusing to accord approval to the appointment of 4 principals selected and appointed by the petitioner-Society and directing it to make appointments to the existing vacancies based on the seniority list as it stood on 31st Dec. 1995. The facts in brief may be stated thus:2. The petitioner is an educational Society running nearly 60 educational Institutions in the State of Karnataka of which 19 are Degree Colleges. All these Colleges most of which arc aided, are under the control of the Directorate of Collegiate Education of the Government of Karnataka.3. The U.G.C. Pay Scales were extended to the Teachers employed in Degree Colleges in the State by a Government Order dated 30th March 1990. As per the Scheme so introduced, with effect from 1-1-1986. there have to be only three cadres of Teachers in Degree Colleges namely Lecturers, Lecturers (Sr. Sca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2027
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. Cr.P. 1829/1992 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding in CC. No. 1546/92 (P.C. No. 66/92) on the file of the learned Addl. Munsiff and JMFC., Virajpet. The operative portion of the order reads :In the result, cognizance for the offences under Section 427, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. is taken against all the accused. Issue S/S to the accused. Call on 8.1.1993'.2. Similarly, Cr. P. 572/93 is also filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. questioning the order passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC., Athni, in C.C. No. 111/93 (P.C. No. 35/93). The operative portion of the order reads as under :'Heard Complainant's counsel. Cognizance is taken of the offences under Section 504, 323 and 506 IPC. against the accused. Register and issue 66 to accused Call on 1/4.'3. Since common question is involved in these two petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.In both the cases these impugned orders came to be passed after recording the sworn statement of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2889
ORDERB.N. Mallikarjuna, J. 1. As the order questioned in all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, common judgment would dispose of all the 52 petitions.2. Order dated January 12, 1996 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka (one of the respondents in all the writ petitions) is challenged by various co-operative societies in State in these 52 Writ Petitions. State of Karnataka is the other respondent.3. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by impugned order, in exercise of the power under Section 30-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (the 'Act' for short), directs the societies in the State which is earning profit to contribute 5% of the profit to the funds to be called as 'Sahakara Kalyana Nidhi.' It is stated that there is need to constitute such fund to provide certain benefits to such of those persons who have contributed in the development of co-operative movement in the State and who have rendered selfless service. It is also stated that the direction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(6)KarLJ511; (1999)ILLJ89Kant
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge passed in writ petitions have been challenged by the appellant on the grounds:(1) That the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Central Act') were not applicable in cases covered by the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the 'State Act'). (2) That the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (A.P.M.C.) was not an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Central Act and (3) That even on merits the respondents-workmen were not entitled to the relief of being reinstated with back wages. 2. In order to appreciate the questions of law formulated hereinabove it is necessary to have a resume of the facts in these appeals.The respondents-workmen herein were in the employment of the A.P.M.C. when their services were allegedly terminated. In some cases the industrial disputes raised by them were referred to the Labour Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1147; 1998(6)KarLJ310
ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the communication dated 16-6-1998 (Annexure-A) of the Secretary, Urban Development Department, (respondent 3) to the Commissioner, Hassan Urban Development Authority, (respondent 1) intimating him to cancel the Official Memorandum dated 27-3-1998 (Annexure-D) according sanction to appoint the petitioner for 'Group D' post with effect from 24-3-1998. His further prayer is to regularise his services in the respondent-Urban Development Authority (in short 'Authority').2. Statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the Authority. Apart from this, as directed by this Court, the Commissioner of the Authority has also brought on record certain facts through his personal affidavit.3. According to the Authority, for execution of certain developmental projects undertaken by it during the year 1992-93, it had employed persons like the petitioner on contract or daily wages basis as 'Group D' employees f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR3956; 2000(2)KarLJ135
ORDER1. The above two writ petitions are interconnected. The first writ petition was filed by the former Board of Directors to challenge the order dated 27-3-1999 passed by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (C and M) superseding their society known as Horticultural Producers Co-operative Marketing and Processing Society Limited, popularly known as 'HOPCOMS'. Whereas the second writ petition was filed by some of the shareholders of the said society for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents in that writ petition to conduct the election on 23-5-1999.2. For the purpose of convenience the petitioners in the first petition are referred to as the petitioners-Former Board of Directors (in briefreferred to as 'petitioners-Directors') whereas the petitioners in the second writ petition are referred to as the petitioners-shareholders.3. The respondents in both the writ petitions are not common, besides they are differentially placed in the order in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR1901; 2000(6)KarLJ308
ORDER1. The first petitioner is the mother of the petitioners 2 to 4 and the legally wedded wife of late Rajanna who was working as a Conductor in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'Corporation' in short), have filed this writ petition seeking common relief by issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12/18-10-1994 Annexure-H issued by the 3rd respondent and further have sought for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for his appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, as there are no other members of the petitioners family earning for their bread. Therefore, the present petition is filed urging various facts and legal contentions.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of considering the rival contentions of the parties are stated as hereunder:Late Rajanna, husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 to 4 was working as a Conductor in the 3r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2000(87)FLR810]; ILR2000KAR4099; 2000(6)KarLJ538; (2001)ILLJ245Kant
Acts/Rules/Orders:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 10(4-A), 25-B(2) and 25-F;Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948Cases Referred:Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited, AIR 1981 SC 1253, 1981 Lab. IC 806 (SC);Workmen of America Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 458, 1986 Lab. IC 98(SC), 1985-II-LLJ-539 (SC);M/s. Shalimar Works Limited v. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 1217;Ratan Chandra Sammanta v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2276;Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455, 2000(1) SLR 636;Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited, AIR 1999 SC 1351JUDGEMENT G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Karnataka Electricity Board (in short the 'Board') constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, against the order dated 28-1-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in W....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(5)KarLJ135
ORDER1. An interesting question is raised in this petition on the followingfacts:Facts.--Respondent 2 is a Marketing Committee of Kundgol constituted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Regulations) Act ('the Act' for short). Elections were held for the said committee on 28-4-1997. Petitioner contested as a representative of Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Limited ('APMC' for short), Kundgol in terms of Section 11 of the Act. Incidentally, at the relevant point of time, petitioner happened to be a member of the committee and also the President of respondent 3. In the elections held to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee in April 1997, petitioner was elected. He secured eight votes out of total number of fourteen votes. The elected office is for a period of five years.2. Petitioner further states that elections were held to the committee of respondent 3 on 30-5-1999. He did not contest in the said election to the committee and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR1341; (2002)IVLLJ370Kant
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. These Writ Petitions are inter-connected, inasmuch as they are concerned with the Standing Orders of the institutions which are common in nature and therefore they are dealt with under a common judgment.2. W.P. 20302/1991 is filed by the workmen of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as HAL in brevity) praying to quash the order dated August 5, 1991 bearing No. IE-5/5/6/85/LS-1 passed by the second respondent appellate authority, namely, the Joint Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India.3. W.P. 12533/1992 is by the workmen of Indian Telephone Industries (hereinafter referred to as ITI in brevity), wherein the prayer is to quash the order dated August 6, 1991 bearing No. IE-5/4/861LS-1 passed by the very same second appellate authority, namely, the Joint Chief Labour Commissioner.4. W.P. 12787/1992 is filed by the Management of HAL seeking to quash the order of the same Joint Chief Labour Commissioner dated August 5, 1991 in No....
Tag this Judgment!