Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-03-2001
Reported in : 2002(3)KarLJ348
1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-05-2001
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR171]; 2002(3)KarLJ273
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner is sugar manufacturing company. It has laid off its workmen from the closing of working hours on 13th April, 2001 as per the notice at Annexure-A. The 2nd respondent-Association of workers of petitioner-Company complained to the Labour Department that the management illegally declared lay-off without paying lay-off compensation and thereby violated Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Labour Department issued a notice to the petitioner as per Annexure-B, for which the management has replied as per Annexure-C. Since the reply of the management was not tenable, the Commissioner of Labour issued the impugned recovery certificate at Annexure-D for a total sum of Rs. 51,56,746.00. The petitioner is seeking to quash the same and to declare that petitioner-unit as a 'seasonal establishment'.2. Elaborate and detailed statement cf objections is filed on behalf of 2nd respondent along with several...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-10-2001
Reported in : 2001ACJ1528; AIR2001Kant275; ILR2001KAR2879; 2001(5)KarLJ322
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 92-A, 92(2), 94, 95(1), 95(2), 96, 96(2), 140, 140(5), 141, 145, 149, 163-A, 163-A(1), 163-A(3), 163-B, 166, 173 and 217;Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994;Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 110 and 110-F;Constitution of India - Articles 14, 39-A and 41;Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 33, Rule 9-A;Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923Cases Referred:Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others, AIR 1997 SC 412;Ramdev Singh v. Chudasama and Others and Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and Another, 1999 ACJ 1129, (1999) 1 Guj. L.R. 631 (Guj.);Kesavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer, 1971 ACJ 219 (Ker.), 1971 Ker. LT 380;Mangilal v. Parasram, AIR 1971 M.P. 5, 1970 ACJ 86 (M.P.);M/s Marine and General Insurance Company Limited v. Dr. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 Bom. 53, 1976 ACJ 288 (Bom.);Haji Zakaria v. Naoshir Cama, AIR 1976 A.P. 171, 1976 ACJ 320 (A.P.);British India General Insurance Company Limited v. Captain Itbar S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-10-2001
Reported in : III(2002)ACC350
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Keeping in mind the importance of various questions arising regarding the scope and applicability of Section 163A which was inserted by the Parliament in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act') by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 54/1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act') the Division Bench on 3rd of March, 2000 after formulating certain questions of law which were likely to arise and affect a large number of appeals or proceedings pending before this Court requested Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench to lay down law for its uniform applicability in the State of Karnataka and to avoid difference of opinion amongst various Benches.Facts:On 28.3.1987, one Pradeep Wadi and his younger brother Praveen Kumar Wadi were proceeding on Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. CAX 9954. Praveen Kumar Wadi was driving the motor cycle and Pradeep Wadi was the pillion rider. They were proceeding from Bangalore t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-23-2001
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR939]; (2001)IILLJ581Kant
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the orders of E.I. Court in Application No. 41/1987 before the Employees Insurance Court at Bangalore.2. The facts that led to the filing of this appeal in brief are as under:The appellant herein is a private limited Company engaged in designing, installation of air pollution control, humidification and ventilation system. It has registered office at Bangalore with branches at different places outside Karnataka and independent units at Madras, Coimbatore, Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta. According to the appellant-applicant the branches mentioned supra are independent units having their employees. Office at Bangalore do not have control over these units. Therefore, the employees in these branches that too outside Karnataka cannot be considered as part of the Bangalore unit. The appellant got a notice from the respondent informing that it is coverable as per the Notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-29-2001
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR377]; ILR2002KAR1185; 2002(2)KarLJ394
ORDERB.K. Sangalad, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 18-10-2000 passed in ESI No. 4 of 1999 by the learned Judge, ESI Court, Hubli, allowing the application filed under Section 75 of the ESI Act.2. The respondent is the applicant and the appellant is the respondent before the ESI Court at Hubli.3. M/s. Tungabhadra. Steel Products Limited, Hospet (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') is a subsidiary of Bharat Tantra Nigam Limited, Allahabad. It is a joint undertaking of the Government of India and the Governments of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and it is being incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The company has been engaged in design, fabrication, erection and manufacturing of various types of gates required for river valley projects with other activities and it has employed about 990 employees. For three years prior to approaching the ESI Court, it is stated that the financial position of the company was bad and the profit margin of the compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-27-2001
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1048; 2001(6)KarLJ64
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner/management has challenged in this writ petition the order of the Labour Court, Mysore, in I.D. No. 50 of 1993 holding that the respondent/claimant is entitled to retire from service with effect from 24-1-1995 and award of consequential benefits on the basis of the said date of retirement. 2. Brief facts of the case are as hereunder: The petitioner is a company manufacturing sugar. The respondent was appointed as mason in the year 1951. While joining the company he did not furnish his date of birth. Subsequently, he was working in the company as a driver. As no documentary proof of date of birth was given by him to indicate his age, the petitioner constituted Medical Board for examining the respondent and similarly placed employees who have not given the date of birth or age at the time of entering into service. The respondent was called upon to appear before the Medical Board. The respondent appeared before the Medical Board. He was examined and the Med...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-09-2001
Reported in : 2001(6)KarLJ139
1. This appeal preferred by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Binny Fields, Binnypeth, Bangalore, under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) against the order dated 10th September, 1999 passed in ESI No. 16 of 1997 before the ESI Court, Hubli, raises an interesting question as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of an establishment, which establishment admittedly at a given point of time had engaged the services of as many as 12 persons and if the applicability can be avoided by the subsequent dispute raised as to the actual number of employees employed in the establishment.2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that, the 1st respondent, a private limited company is an establishment, which undertakes fabrication job of making shutters on the orders placed by its customers. The respondent-company has also obtained registration certificate under the Shop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-27-2001
Reported in : 2001ACJ1797
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. These appeals arise out of common judgment and award delivered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 10, Bangalore City, in M.V.C. Case No. 1222 of 1986. The Tribunal by award dated 9.8.88, has assessed the compensation in total to be Rs. 4,47,000 and awarded it to the extent of Rs. 3,50,250 with interest at 9 per cent per annum. The Tribunal opined that accident in question did take place on account of no doubt, negligence of the driver of the vehicle TVS 50 bearing registration No. AAQ 920, but there was contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25 per cent in the causing of or in the taking place of accident and as such, it held that petitioners-claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,50,250, as compensation from the respondents before, with reference to 75 per cent negligence of rider/driver of vehicle and as such awarded the same with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the said amount.M.F.A. No. 203 of 1989, has been file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-28-2001
Reported in : 2002ACJ1234
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. These two appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 7.4.99 delivered by M.A.C.T., Belgaum (Prl. Civil Judge) in M.V.C. No. 988 of 1995 whereby Tribunal has awarded in total a sum of Rs. 3,03,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that on 16.2.1995 the claimant-injured was travelling in K.S.R.T.C, bus bearing registration No. KA 25-F 713 from Mod-age village towards Belgaum, after attending the jatra of Goddess Bhaveshwari at Modage village and the said bus was full of passengers. At about 9.30 a.m. the said bus when coming on the Puna-Bangalore National Highway Road near Managutti Cross, the driver of the said bus respondent No. 1 was driving the bus at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of driving of the bus in a rash and negligent manner, driver lost control over his vehicle and the said K.S.R.T.C. bus went and dashed against stationary truck bearing registration N...
Tag this Judgment!