Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1980(1)KarLJ200; (1980)ILLJ123Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these four writ appeals, preferred against the orders of the single Judge dismissing the four writ petitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by registered owners of coffee estates under the Indian Coffee Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the Coffee Board, is an industry carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Central Government or is an institution established not for purposes of profit, and consequently excepted from the application of the Payment of Bonus Act in view of cls. (iv) and (v) (c), respectively, of S. 32 of the Act ?' 2. The appellants are registered owners of coffee estates under the Act. The first respondent-Coffee Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has been brought into existence by the Act. With the approval of the Central Government, the Board decided to pay bonus to its employees under the provisions of the Payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR777]; ILR2005KAR2701; 2005(5)KarLJ564
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. In these writ petitions, the Life Insurance Corporation of India has assailed the show cause notices and demand notices issued by the respondent-Labor Inspectors under the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961 (for short 'Act of 1961) r/w the Karnataka Shops and Commercials Establishment Rules, 1963 (for short 'Rules of 1963) and the Karnataka Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1965 (for short 'Act of 1965'). The parties being common and common questions of fact and that of law having arisen, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner having questioned the issue of show cause notices and demand notices calling upon it to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, has in addition sought for a declaration that it is exempt from the application of the provisions of the Act of 1965 and the Act of 1961.3. The claim of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4748; 2004(7)KarLJ388
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is, whether the remedy provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are unavailable to the workmen of LIC, consequent to insertion of sub-section (2) (cc), (2A), (2B) and (2C) by way of amendment to Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956.2. The facts leading to this Writ Petition are as hereunder:-One Sri N. Kesar Singh was an employee of the LIC having been appointed as a building supervisor in the year 1962. He came to be dismissed from the service on 21.5.1985 for the proved misconduct after holding a domestic enquiry under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The said N. Kesar Singh raised an industrial dispute through the Union. The Central Government referred the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in reference No. CR No. 72/87 which was registered on 12.1,1987. After service of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR602; 2007(3)KLJ401; 2007(2)KCCR845; 2007(1)AIRKarR666
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have sought to declare Clause 4 of the Insurance Policy as unconstitutional and ultravires and further, to declare that the condition to undergo Medical Test for getting the revival or renewal of the policy as null and void and to issue writ of mandamus or any other direction directing the respondents 2 & 3 not to forfeit the premium amount paid by the discontinued policy holders and to treat the said amount as fixed deposit till the maturity period and further to issue writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Corporation to deposit all such alleged forfeited amount in any one of the scheduled bank or in the alternative, to treat the said amount, as the deposit of the policy holders payable at the time of maturity of the policy along with the reasonable interest and for such other relielfs.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The petitioners are said to be the polic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant113; ILR2002KAR1400; 2002(2)KarLJ213
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioners are agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). They are calling in question the notices issued by the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 ('Regulations' for short).2. Brief facts are:First petitioner is working as agent in the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1983. He got married to one Smt. B.S. Girija on 16-4-1992, who is a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation. Prior to the marriage, first petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation to give him permission to marry an employee of the Corporation, and had further requested to permit him to continue to be the agent of the respondent- Corporation. The request made by the petitioner had not been replied by the respondent-Corporation one way or the other.3. Second petitioner is also working as an agent of the respondent-Corporation right from the ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR698; 2009(2)KarLJ273; 2009(1)AIRKarR21
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Senior Branch Manager in the cadre of Class-I Officer with the first respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the Corporation'). The case made out by the petitioner is that he voluntarily retired from service on 07.11.1991 due to some domestic and personal reasons. This petition is filed for the relief to declare that the age of the officer to be 55 years at the time of voluntary retirement under Regulation 19(2)(a) to be ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 16(1), 21, 39(d) and 41 of the Constitution of India and further declare the respondent Corporation to grant commutation amount of the pension and to pay pension from the date of his retirement on 01.11.1993 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts germane for the disposal of this case can be stated in brief as follows:The petitioner, as stated earlier, was a Class-I Officer, Due to some domestic problems, he proposes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1990]68CompCas545(Kar); 1987(3)KarLJ293
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In this writ petition in which the petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to make payment pursuant to the two policies which had been taken by the husband of the petitioner during his life time, the following two question of law arise for consideration : (1) Whether in view of section 45 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938, the Life Insurance Corporation cannot repudiate the claim under a life insurance policy after the expiry of two years from the date of its issue, even if it has in its possession evidence to prove that the policy-holder had suppressed material information which he ought to have disclosed or had made deliberate false statement in respect of a material matter and (2) If the repudiation of the claim under a life insurance policy by the Corporation, is on the ground that the policy-holder had suppressed material information which he ought to have disclosed or on a material matter, on the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : III(2004)ACC380; 2004ACJ591; ILR2004KAR249; 2004(1)KarLJ216
1. The appellant in this appeal is the Life Insurance Corporation of India. In this appeal the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 25th July, 2000 made in Writ Petition No. 19596 of 1999 by the learned Single Judge.2. The facts in brief are as follows:The second respondent is an institution registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The object of the second respondent-institution is to promote Kannada literature and culture. The wife of the first respondent-Smt. Uma Iyer, expired on 29th June, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased employee'), while she was in the employment of the second respondent as a Stenographer. The appellant and the second respondent had entered into a scheme known as 'Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as 'the GSLI Scheme'), with effect from 20th September, 1989. The deceased was also admitted for the benefit of the GSLI Scheme. As per the terms of the GSLI Scheme, the second r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ651Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner before us was holding the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department. After the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporations of India under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, on 1 September, 1956, on 1 September 1956 the petitioner who became entitled under S. 11(1) of the Act to become an employee of the newly-established Corporation was appointed as a section head. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and also of the order made by the Central Government known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which they made in the exercise of the power created by S. 11(2). 3. The petitioner also seeks a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall treat him as superintendent with effect from 1 September, 1956 and make available to him the highe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR711]; ILR2007KAR3055; 2007(5)KarLJ446
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. W.P. No. 30595/2003 is filed by Sri. Srinidhi Anantharaman, Managing Director of M/s. Geo Desic Techniques Pvt. Ltd., seeking declaration that, the State Government is the Appropriate Government in respect of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore under Section 2 Sub-section (1) Clause (a) Sub-clause (ii) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA Act') and under Section 2 Clause (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') and for a declaration that the 5th respondent - Inspecting Officer of the State Government is the Competent Authority.2. W.P. No. 30593/2003 is also filed for declaration similar to the above relief.3. In these writ petitions, the only question that is raised is:Whether the State Government is the Appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2 Sub-section (a) Clause (ii) of C.L.R.A. Act and Section 2 Clause (a) of the Act in respect of H...
Tag this Judgment!