Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1971Kant22; AIR1971Mys22
narayana pai, j.1. workers and staff association of government soap factory, the petitioner, was formed in 1963 and registered as a trade union under the trade unions act. in 1964, it was recognised by the managment. at that time it was the only union of the workers or employees of the government soap factory. various questions relating to pay scales, emoluments and amenities as well as conditions of employment were subject of a settlement or agreement between the petitioner association and the management in march, 1964. it was reduced into writing on the 30th of that month and was to remain in force for a period of three years.2. when the currency of the said settlement came to an end fit is also stated that shortly before 30th march 1967 the petitioner had issued a notice of termination), the petitioner-association submitted a detailed charter of demands. as the management did not show any inclination to accept the same, the petitioner moved the conciliation officer to intervene. during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings another union of the workers appears to have been formed by name the government soap factory employees' union. this union intervened in the conciliation proceedings in november 1967. it appears from the report made by the conciliation officer that the said union also presented a charter of demands or otherwise pressed its own demands on the same matters as were covered by the charter of demands made by the petitioner-association. after some time .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR920]; ILR1995KAR166; (1996)ILLJ266Kant
ordersaldanha, j.1. the two petitioners were officers of the respondent-1 company and it is alleged that pursuant to an accident that took place at gujarat on 22.4.1985 that they were deputed there in connection with a certain inspection with direction that they were to submit a report. briefly stated, it is alleged that subsequent to this, it was necessary for the respondent-company to take certain corrective action and that the conduct of the petitioners in the course of these subsequent developments is alleged to have given rise to certain disciplinary proceedings. in sum and substance, what is alleged against the petitioners is that while the question of placing orders for certain spare parts were concerned, that they had done so in a manner that was extremely prejudicial to the interest of the company. it was therefore concluded by the company that the petitioner have betrayed a total lack of integrity, that they have been guilty of serious disloyalty against the company and that consequently, they had opened themselves for disciplinary action. what proceeded thereafter may be summarized in so far as charge-sheets were issued to both the petitioners and an enquiry proceeding was instituted. at the conclusion of the enquiry, the two petitioners were held guilty of acts of serious misconduct and the disciplinary authority who is the managing director of company thereafter considered the entire material placed before him and recorded a finding that the two petitioner were .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
b. sreenivase gowda, j.1. this appeal is by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the commissioner for workmen's compensation, davangere (for short 'the commissioner').2. for the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the commissioner.3. brief facts of the case:that on 14.07.2006 when the claimant was working as driver of the lorry bearing registration no. ka-04/b-4181 belonging to the 1st respondent, the lorry met with an accident, as a result, he sustained injuries. he made an application before the commissioner seeking compensation.4. the insurance company filed its statement of objections resisting the claim.5. the claimant in support of his claim examined himself as pw 1 and the doctor as pw 2. he has produced as many as 13 documents, which are marked as ex. p1 to p13.6. the insurance company did not lead any independent evidence except producing the insurance policy ex. r1(2).7. the commissioner after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties by the impugned judgment has held that the claimant has established that be sustained injuries in the accident occurred in the course of and out of employment and he is entitled for compensation, thereafter the commissioner taking into consideration the age of the claimant, nature of his job, the wages drawn by him, the disability stated by the doctor and assessing the loss of earning capacity at 40% and applying the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1965)IILLJ26Kant
hegde, j. 1. these are applications under art. 227 of the constitution. they arise from the decision of the learned judicial magistrate, first class, ii court, bijapur, in miscellaneous cases nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 on his file. the said learned magistrate was constituted as the 'authority' under s. 20 of the minimum wages act, 1948, to be hereinafter referred to as the act to hear and decide all claims arising under ss. 12 and 14 of the act in the district of bijapur. he will be hereinafter referred to as the 'authority.' 2. miscellaneous cases nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 were disposed of by one common order. that order was assailed on various grounds which will be set out presently. 3. briefly stated, the facts of the case material for our present purpose are these. the respondents are borne on the staff of the bijapur municipal borough. they work in the octroi department of that borough. they claimed overtime allowance under the provisions of the act from 1 april, 1955 to 31 march, 1958. their claim was partly allowed and partly disallowed. the bijapur municipal borough has come up with these petitions challenging the decision of the authority to the extent it went against it. the respondents have accepted that decision. the grounds urged in support of these petitions are : (1) there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that all the petitioners had worked overtime. (2) the claim made by the petitioners is in fact a claim for arrears of wages and therefore the present .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ44Kant; (1971)1MysLJ364
narayana pai, c.j.1. when the petitioner was serving as a sub-inspector of police a departmental enquiry was instituted against him for a certain act of misconduct. he was also placed under suspension. before the conclusion of the enquiry, the order of suspension was revoked and he was posted as an assistant sub-inspector of police. the enquiry proceeded and resulted in the imposition of penalty of the petitioner being reduced to the rank of a head constable. the petitioner challenged the said order of punishment in w.p. 952 of 1962. by an order dated 25th march, 1963, the said writ petition was allowed by this court and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was set aside. 2. thereupon, the following order was made in favour of the petitioner by the superintendent of police, bangalore north : 'in view of the high court orders, h.c. 10 d. srinivasa iyer of central police station, is restored to his original rank of assistant sub-inspector with immediate effect'. 3. the petitioner has now filed this writ petitioner contending that on the setting aside of the order of punishment by this court, he was entitled to be reinstated as a sub-inspector of police with effect from the original date of suspension and praying that such an order of restoration be made in his favour together with a direction to extend to him all the benefits flowing therefrom including those of promotion and higher pay. 4. in the affidavit in support of the writ petition it has also been stated that in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1974(28)FLR162]; ILR1973KAR11; (1973)ILLJ306Kant; (1973)1MysLJ262
a. narayana pai, c.j.1. this writ petition by the workmen of the davangere cotton mills limited, represented by the davangere cotton mills employees' association is directed against an award dated 12th july, 1967, made by the industrial tribunal in mysore at bangalore, in industrial dispute no. 145 of 1966 referred to it by the state government. the contesting respondent is the 2nd respondent, the management of the davangere cotton mills limited, represented by its secretary. 2. though several points of dispute were considered by the tribunal, the only two matters pressed before us for consideration by mr. byra reddy, advocate-general on behalf of the petitioner, are (1) the retrenchment of 77 workmen on 20th june, 1966 and (2) the dismissal for misconduct of six workmen after a disciplinary enquiry held by the management. on both these matters, the tribunal has rejected the case of the workmen. 3. regarding the retrenchment, the admitted facts are that consequent upon a change effected by the management in the pattern of production and end products of the mills, 77 workmen in the reeling department were found to be surplus and that the said 77 revelers were retrenched from service on 20th june, 1966. when the workmen presented themselves for work on the morning of the said day they were served with the notices stating that for the above reason they had become surplus and that, therefore, they were retrenched from service in accordance with s. 25f of the industrial disputes .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1964KAR639; (1965)IILLJ519Kant; (1964)2MysLJ153
orderhedge, j. 1. the petitioner who was a depute superintendent of police had been dismissed on the basis of a charge framed against him on october 26, 1959. aggrieved by that order, he has come up to this court under art. 226 of the constitution seeking a writ of certiorari by calling for the relevant records and quashing the order made by the government on february 2, 1962 in pursuance of the charge framed against him. 2. the charge against the petitioner reads : 'objectionable and unbecoming conduct in a responsible police officer of the rank of a deputy superintendent of police in that you wilfully connived at the smuggling of rice from bidar to bombay state through the chandakapur police check-post on the night of 24/25 may, 1959 by allowing six lorries bearing registration nos. (1) m.y.q. - 662, (2) b.y.u. - 11, (3) m.y.q. - 670, (4) a.p.t. - 3261, (5) m.y.q. - 692, and (6) a.p.t. - 4142, carrying rice bags which were detained by the villagers of kalyani beyond chandakapur police check-post near amrutkund temple on the chandakapur-sholapur trunk road on the night of may 24, 1959 along with sub-inspector sri u. a. jayappa at kalyani police station, without taking any legal action and further caused the disappearance of documentary evidence by tearing a portion of a page from the vehicle checking register maintained at the chandakapur check-post, on which you had made some remarks and also by preparing a false document, viz., your tour journal for the month of may, 1959, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1969)IILLJ163Kant
somnath ayyar, j.1. an executive engineer who retired on superannuation on 9 january, 1965 is the petitioner before us. in this writ petition which he presented in august 1965 he makes two complaints. the first is that he was improperly excluded from promotion the post of a superintending engineer during the long period between june 1963 and the date of his retirement. the second is that in a disciplinary proceeding which was commenced against him when he was still in service a punishment in the nature of a reduction of pension was imposed on him after his retirement which was not permissible. 2. sri keshava ayyangar appearing for the petitioner informed us that the petitioner does not press in this writ petition, the contention concerning his exclusion from promotion. he seeks permission to withdraw from that part of the writ petition with liberty to pursue other remedies such as might be available to him in that regard. we grant him permission to withdraw from that part of the writ petition in that way, reserving liberty for him to pursue such other remedies as may be available to him if he chooses to do so. 3. so, the only restricted investigation which we should make is into the complaint that there was an improper imposition of punishment after the petitioner's retirement. 4. to understand the contention urged in this context, it will be necessary to refer to the events which preceded the reduction which was made of the petitioner's pension. when the petitioner was the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1966KAR124; (1966)ILLJ816Kant; (1965)2MysLJ215
orderhegde, j. 1. in this writ petition under art. 226 of the constitution, the petitioner prays that this court may be pleased to quash the order of appointment of respondent 2 as the 'specially empowered authority,' as per the order of the governor in no. law 284 cet. 64, dated 11 january, 1965, and further quash all proceedings of respondent 2 held in pursuance of the above order by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction as the court deems fit. 2. the material facts of this case are these : in the year 1943 the petitioner was recruited as a district munsif by the madras public service commission. thereafter, he was serving in the judicial department of the then madras state. he was promoted as a subordinate judge in the year 1954. at the time of the reorganization of the state on 1 november, 1956 he was allotted to the new state of mysore. in this state the post of a subordinate judge has been equated to that of a civil judge. from the petitioner's affidavit it is gathered that his claim for promotion as a district judge was overlooked and that several of the juniors have been promoted as district judges, while he still continues to be a civil judge. this circumstance appears to have greatly displeased the petitioner. 3. in the beginning of 1964 he was serving as civil judge at karwar in north kanara district. on 3 june, 1964 he applied for and obtained thirty day's commuted leave on ground of illness. he extended that leave another .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1964)ILLJ693Kant; (1964)1MysLJ15
orderhegde, j.1. this petition under art. 226 of the constitution came up before this court for hearing on 26 march, 1959. this court allowed the petition and set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner on the sole ground that the inquiry held against the petitioner was vitiated because, the examination-in-chief of the witnesses examined during the inquiry was not made in the presence of the petitioner. aggrieved by that order, the state took up the matter in appeal to the supreme court. the supreme court set aside the decision of this court and remanded the case for disposing of the questions which had not been considered at the earlier hearing. the decision of the supreme court is in state of mysore v. shivabasappa shivappa [1964 - i l.l.j. 24]. in the last paragraph of the judgment, the supreme court observed thus : 'this finding (finding relating to the validity of the enquiry held) does not dispose of the entire matter. it is contention of the respondent that the deputy inspector-general of police was not entitled in revision to enhance the punishment and this question has not been decided by the learned judges. it is, therefore, necessary to remand this case for hearing on this and all other issues which might arise for decision. we accordingly set aside the order in appeal and remand the case for hearing on the other points in this case. costs of this appeal will abide the result of the hearing in the court below.' 2. it is not necessary to set out the facts of .....
Tag this Judgment!