Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-03-2004
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
Decided on : Feb-09-2004
Reported in : [2005(104)FLR161]; ILR2004KAR4890; 2004(6)KarLJ59; (2005)ILLJ364Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the award of the Labour Court dated 3-4-1998 where, on a preliminary point the Labour Court held that the petitioner is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently passed an award dated 19-6-1998 rejecting his application filed under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act in which he has challenged the order of termination,2. The case of the petitioner in brief are as under:He was appointed as a Shift Operator (Process) on a salary of Rs. 600-00 per month on 9-2-1976. His appointment was subsequently confirmed on 12-2-1977. Annexure-A is the order of appointment. Annexure-B is the order of confirmation. Petitioner was promoted as Junior Officer (Process) with effect from 1st March, 1982. His salary was raised from Rs. 600-00 to Rs. 1100-00. Annexure-C, dated 9th March, 1982 is the letter evidencing the said fact. He was called upon to enter into a service contract ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-08-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Kant439; ILR2004KAR3390; 2004(7)KarLJ289
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This Writ Petition is presented against the Life Insurance Corporation of India challenging the action on the part of the respondent Corporation in repudiating the contract between one Appasaheb M Gayakwad who died on 28.8.1998 and the Corporation in respect of the Life Insurance Policy No. 632317283 which the said person had taken out during his life time for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-.2. Petitioner is the brother of the insured and also a person who is nominated in the policy. It appears that the wife and children of the deceased were nominated initially and later the nomination had been changed in favour of the petitioner, the brother of the deceased and to the exclusion of the wife and children.3. As per the directions of this Court on 22.2.2002 the wife and children were added as petitioners 2 to 5 to this petition. Petitioners are aggrieved by the repudiation of the contract and non-settlement of the amount due under the policy and have questioned the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-04-2004
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3892; 2004(3)KarLJ505
..... a special act, parliament devotes its entire consideration to a particular subject. when a general act is subsequently passed, it is logical to presume that parliament has not repealed or modified the former special act unless it appears that the special act again received consideration from parliament'. 53. in life insurance corporation of india v ..... by the other upalokayukta, if any and if there is no other upalokayukta by the lokayukta'.43. section 7 of the act provides for matters which may be investigated by the lokayukta or by the upalokayukta. sub-section (1) of section 7 of the act makes it clear that the lokayukta has been empowered to investigate a complaint involving a grievance ..... section 12 of the karnataka lokayukta act, 1984 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the act'). the karnataka state universities act (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the universities act'), being a special legislation and provides specific provisions for appointment and removal of vice-chancellors, the act is not applicable to the petitioner and the universities act overrides the act.(ii) in the absence of a notification of the state government under section 7 of the act ..... provisions, was considered by the supreme court in the case of shri ram narain v. simla banking and industrial company limited : [1956]1scr603 and it was held as under.--'each enactment being a special act, the ordinary principle that a special law overrides a general law does not afford any clear solution in this cas .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-31-2004
Reported in : 2004(7)KarLJ456
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner-Education Trust has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19-6-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. LND(S) CR 223.97-98 at Annexure-G urging various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is that 57 acres of land in Sy. No. 225 of Somanahalli was granted permanently and 33 acres of land in the said survey number was leased in its favour for a period of 10 years by the State Government vide Government Order No. RD 153 LBG 62, dated 3-5-1962 for the purpose of development of agriculture along with the Education Activity. Pursuant to the said grant, it has constructed various buildings for the purpose of setting up of Engineering and Diploma Colleges and High Schools. On an earlier occasion, petitioner had filed W.P. No. 26259 of 1991 when under the guise of 'Ashraya Scheme' some people tried to enter the property of the petitioner on the ground that sites have been allotted to them by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-17-2004
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR836]; ILR2004KAR2460; 2004(7)KarLJ281; (2004)IIILLJ1039Kant
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. A common-question of law arises for consideration in all these cases which were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. The question precisely is whether conveyance allowance paid by the Management to its employees is a wage within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the State Employees Insurance Act so as to entitle the Corporation to demand contribution under the said Act. The ESI Courts have taken the view that the payment of allowance is a wage especially when the same is under a settlement arrived at between the employees and the Management. Aggrieved by the said view, the Corporation had filed M.F.As.No. 2251, 2657, 2655, 132, 3594 and 2240/2001 interalia contending that the payment of conveyance allowance was not a part of the wage as defined under the Act and therefore the Management were not entitled to seek exclusion of employees whose wage would go beyond the prescribed limit by clubbing the payment made on account of conveyance al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-15-2004
Reported in : 2005ACJ455; 2005(1)KarLJ530
1. The appellant in this appeal is a Divisional Controller of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. In this appeal the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 17th August, 2002 made in No. WCA.CR.25 of 2001 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), Gulbarga Division, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,94,120/ (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety-four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Only) by way of compensation to respondents 1 to 6 on account of death of one Revanasiddappa (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') who was working as a Conductor in the appellant-Corporation. The 1st respondent is the wife of the workman, the 2nd respondent is the mother and respondents 3 to 6 are his children.2. The respondents made a claim before the Commissioner under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking compensation from the appellant on the ground that the workman had d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-23-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)KarLJ594
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.W.P. Nos. 173 to 195 of 2004 connected with W.P. Nos. 656 to 663 of 2004:1. Facts of these cases are as under:Petitioners in these petitions state that they are serving the respondents-Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited ('BESCOM' for short), since 1998 as ledger clerks. According to them the respondents appointed them for proper administration of work and maintenance of records in the offices of the BESCOM in its four zones called, Bangalore West, North, South and Central. The nature of duties of the petitioners is to maintain ledgers, undertaking the work of maintaining record of demand, collection and balance etc. They are being paid a consolidated salary. The Deputy Controller of Accounts informed the fifth respondent that appointment of the persons on contract basis was approved. They were appointed by the then Karnataka Electricity Board ('KEB' for short), but however no orders were issued. The Government passed an Act in the matter of functioning of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-30-2004
Reported in : ILR2005KAR279; (2008)11VST267(Karn)
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the assessee under Section 15-A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979. The assessment year is 1992-93.2. Brief facts which are germane for disposal of the revision petition can be stated as under;The Petitioner is a limited company manufacturing, among others, air-conditioners and refrigerators in various States in India and the countrywide marketing network with branches including one at Bangalore. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short CST Act), Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short KST Act) and Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short KTEG Act). The petitioner's branch at Bangalore is engaged in selling its manufactured goods. For the assessment year 1992-93, the petitioner filed its return under the KTEG Act declaring the value of goods arrived at by taking the amount shown in the stock transfer invoice issued by the manufacturing unit which represe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-30-2004
Reported in : (2008)11VST835(Karn)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of electronic goods, is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, (for short, 'the KTEG Act').For the assessment year 1996-97 (April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997), the petitioner filed a return on May 30, 1997, subsequently revised on February 29, 2000, returning a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,27,84,17,826. The assessing authority (second respondent) issued a proposition notice dated March 2, 2000 proposing a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,62,03,58,237. The petitioner filed objections dated March 28, 2000. One of the objections related to the valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of entry tax under the Act. The assessing authority passed an order of assessment dated March 31, 2000 determining the taxable turnover as Rs. 3,78,24,78,447 and entry tax payable as Rs. 4,42,01,754.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the valuation of the goods adopted for the purpose of levy of entry tax under the Act. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!