Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-24-1986
Reported in : (1987)ILLJ66Mad; (1991)IIMLJ93
ORDER1. In this Writ Petition, we have to deal with the claim of the workmen of the State Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, for customary bonus. I find that the workmen have been referred to as 'awardstaff', but in order to avoid any ambiguity, I would prefer to refer to such claimants for customary bonus as 'workmen' in this order. Their agitation for such bonus was the subject matter of a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the first-respondent in I.D. No. 32 of 1982. The questions referred for adjudication to the first respondent ran as follows : '(a) Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India in stopping the payment of one month's basic wages as drawn on 30th June, and 31st December, respectively by way of bonus annually with effect from the second half of 1975 is justified. If not to what relief the workmen are entitled to (award staff) (b) Are the members of the award staff of State Bank of India entitled to receive annual bonu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-28-1986
Reported in : (1986)54CTR(Mad)327; [1987]164ITR525(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The two questions which have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to carry forward and set off the loss of Rs. 2,32,485 under section 72(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's finding that there was unity of control and management of the two businesses carried on by the assessee was relevant for the purpose of deciding the question whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss under section 72(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or not and whether that finding is supported by materials on record ?' 2. The assessment year in question is 1968-69. During the prior assessment year, the assessee, who is not represented before us, was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-13-1986
Reported in : II(1987)ACC250; [1988]64CompCas343(Mad)
1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in MACP No.,9 of 1975 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumar. Ranking of parties will be as referred to as in the Tribunal. He was injured in an accident which occurRed at 7.30 a.m., on September 5,1972, at Edaicode on the Melpuram-Panichamood Road, when he was going on a bicycle from the north to the south on the eastern side of the road., At that time, the car bearing registration number TMC 5488 came from the opposite direction and dashed against him causing freievous injuries. he was an in-patient in the hospital from September 5,1972, to September 18, 197, and took treatment as an out-patient until JUly 5,1973. The first respondent was convicted by the criminal court under Sections 279 and 338, Indian penal Code. Due to the accident, the petitioner had sustained permanent disability including cerebral concussion and partial loss of hearing and sight, and he could not continue his studies and he is not fit to do any manual work. ...
Tag this Judgment!