Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-16-2002
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
Decided on : Mar-20-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)KarLJ369
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner, a party-in-person is questioning Rule 9(1) of the Notification dated 18-7-1996 styled as 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers' (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 1996', vide Annexure-A. The petitioner is also questioning Instruction 11 of the 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers' (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1996', vide Annexure-B, insofar as it relates to the fixation of date as 1-8-1994 for payment of gratuity as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is also seeking for a direction to recalculate the gratuity payable to the petitioner on the basis of such rules and pay as per 1996 pay scale rules.2. The petitioner entered the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as an Assistant on 23-5-1958. He became an officer on 29-10-1966 in the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer and thereafter he was designated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-06-2002
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR465]; ILR2002KAR4019; 2002(5)KarLJ411; (2002)IIILLJ757Kant
K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 directed against order dated 21-12-2000 passed in ESI Application No. 69 of 1999 on the file of the ESI Court (Additional Industrial Tribunal) at Bangalore.2. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellant and the respondent are hereinafter referred to as the applicant and respondent-ESI Corporation as arrayed in the Court below.3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:That the applicant filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948 against the respondent-ESI Corporation before the ESI Court at Bangalore praying for the following reliefs.-- (a) to set aside the claim in C-18, dated nil at Document No. 7 to the application;(b) to order that the amount paid towards books and periodicals under the broad head of Modular Expenses wage as defined unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-18-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)KarLJ13
1. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4849 of 1998 has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jamkhandi and is directed against the judgment and award dated 18-4-1998 passed in L.A.C. No. 312 of 1997on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamkhandi. This land acquisition case was clubbed along with L.A.C. Nos. 591, 299, 301, 305, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315 and 318 of 1997 and the Reference Court has rendered the main judgment in L.A.C. No. 591 of 1997 in which case witnesses have been examined and documents have been marked. Following the judgment and award rendered in L.A.C. No. 591 of 1997 all other land acquisition cases have been disposed off on the same terms. As against the said judgment and award dated 18-4-1998 rendered in all the land acquisition cases referred to above the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred these appeals under Section 54(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act.2. As against the judgment and award made in L.A.C. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-19-2002
Reported in : 2002ACJ2054; ILR2002KAR3117; 2003(4)KarLJ484
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhadravathi in M.V.C. No. 202 of 1996 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal has taken the view that since the appellant was himself the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, he was not entitled to claim any compensation as the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of his own driver. The appellant assails the correctness of that view and argues that even when he himself is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and even when the accident in question had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of his own driver, he was entitled to maintain a claim as a third party. The controversy arises in the following circumstances.2. A private car bearing Registration No. KA-14/M 749 owned by the appellant was on 7th of July...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-28-2002
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR592]; ILR2002KAR2768; 2002(5)KarLJ538; (2002)IIILLJ32Kant
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. The matter has been referred to this Full Bench as per the directions of the Chief Justice and has come up before us.2. The matrix of the case leading upto this reference in brief are that the petitioner was working with the 1st respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short), for the last 15 years before the filing of this petition. On the allegation that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 7-11-1997 to 7-1-1998, the Divisional Commissioner (Disciplinary Authority) of the 1st respond ent-KSRTC, by order dated 13-4-1999, terminated the services of the petitioner-workman. An industrial dispute was raised under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('ID Act' for short), which was registered as LID. No. 179 of 1999. After the pleading, the Labour Court posted the matter for recording the evidence on the validity of the domestic enquiry. In the meanwhile the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Division...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-05-2002
Reported in : I(2004)ACC69
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal is before us on a reference made in the following circumstances:In Gulam Khader and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Limited and Anr. 2001 (1) Kr. L.J. 340, a Division Bench of this Court held that a higher multiplier would be applicable for determination of loss of dependency in claims arising out of motor accidents that have occurred after the commencement of Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1994. For the claims arising out of accidents prior to the said amendment, the multiplier could not go beyond 16 as held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. : AIR1994SC1631 . Another Division Bench of this Court comprising H.N. Tilhari and K.R. Prasad Rao, JJ., expressed doubts about the correctness of the said view. Their Lordships were of the opinion that there was no real justification for limiting the benefit of the higher multiplier to claims that arise out of accident...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-04-2002
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR1149]; ILR2002KAR4562; 2003(2)KarLJ544; (2003)ILLJ73Kant
Tirath S. Thakure, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, is whether the appellant-Bangalore Turf Club Limited is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act or a shop within the meaning of notification dated 5-1-1985 issued under Section 1(5) thereof. The question arises in the backdrop of the following facts: 2. The respondent-Regional Director of the ESI Corporation by an Order dated 13-10-1988 passed under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, ['ESI Act' for short] called upon appellant-club to register its employees, submit the prescribed returns and pay ESI contribution in terms of the Act and the regulations framed thereunder. The order proceeded on the premise that the appellant-company had been established to carry on the business of a race club and providing various amenities to public as well as to the members of the club. From the audited balance-shee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-03-2002
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR399]; 2002(5)KarLJ200
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16652 of 1994, dated 16-7-1997. The Single Judge has directed the appellant to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground in the appellant Corporation. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows.-- One Sri Abdul Rahiman, S/o Noor Sab Nadaf was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The father of the petitioner was in the service of LIC and he died on 16-4-1993 while in service. After his death, the respondent herein (petitioner in the writ petition) approached the appellant by making an appropriate representation dated 14-6-1993 requesting for appointment on compassionate ground in the appellant organisation. The request of the respondent was rejected by the LIC by an order dated 4-10-1993. The order of the LIC read as follows.-- 'This has reference to your letter dated 21-4-1993. Your repr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-29-2002
Reported in : 2003ACJ1259
V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. These revision petitions are filed by petitioner company as it is aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 19.3.2001 passed in M.V.C. Nos. 282, 283, 284, 288, 289 and 306 of 1997 in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,000, Rs. 3,000, Rs. 2,000, Rs. 3,000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively. The petitioner has also filed M.F.A. Nos. 3039-3043 of 2001 aggrieved of the judgment and awards passed in M.V.C. Nos. 281, 285, 286, 287 and 290 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, Rs. 15,000, Rs. 55,000, Rs. 17,364 and Rs. 65,387 respectively in favour of the claimants therein. Thereby the total compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T., Koppal, against the petitioner company is Rs. 3,16,751. It is contended by Mr. S.P. Shankar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company that as per the policy issued to the insured in respect of the lorry bearing registration No. KA 26-1632 the liability of the company is limited to 6+1 persons who were travelling ...
Tag this Judgment!