Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-28-2000
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ868Cal
..... of the employees' provident fund and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the indian airlines' and air india' corporations established under section 3 of the air corporation act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the life insurance corporation of india established under section 3 of the life insurance corporations act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or the oil and natural gas commission established under section 3 of the oil and natural gas commission act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the deposit insurance and credit guarantee corporation established under section 3 of the deposit insurance and credit guarantee corporation act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the central warehousing corporation established under section 3 of the warehousing corporations act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the unit trust ..... entitled to?'3. without filing any written statement before the tribunal, the petitioner has straightaway come up with the instant writ application thereby disputing the validity of the reference itself on the grounds that the institute is not an industrial establishment, nor is the concerned employee a workman within the meaning of industrial disputes act. the petitioner has further submitted that appropriate government within the meaning of the aforesaid act is not the state government but the central government and as such the reference was incompetent.4. mr. dutt, the learned counsel appearing on behalf .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-29-2000
Reported in : AIR2000Cal219
1. The defendant No. 2 is the appellant in this appeal which is directed against a judgment and decree dated 17th Feb. 1989 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the suit for eviction filed by the first respondent herein was decreed. 2. In view of the question raised in this appeal it is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in details. Suffice it to say that admittedly by a registered Indenture of Lease dated 15-11-1949 between Prudential Assurance Company Limited, the predecessor in Interest of the first respondent herein and the defendant No. 1 Mrs. Harmine Madath alias Mrs. H, Madath and Mr. Vasgen David Gatachick, the premises in question were demised for a term of three years from 1-10-1949. Allegedly such a demise was made for the purposes mentioned in the Deed of Lease. The plaintiff contended that the aforementioned Vasgen David Gatachick surrendered joint lease whereafter the defendant No. 1 became the sole monthly tenant under the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-26-2000
Reported in : AIR2001Cal15
ORDERBhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This revisional application is at the instance of an occupier governed under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 ('Act') and is directed against order dated August 17, 1988 passed by the Estate Officer in Misc. Case No. EO/24/1197/Misc. 4. C.R. Avenue, Calcutta-700073, thereby holding that an application at the instance of an occupier for assessment of any arrear of rent and for giving direction for payment of such rent under Section 7 of the Act was not maintainable. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner was induced in the disputed property by the opposite party, Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the occupation of the present petitioner is governed by the provision of the Act. 3. The case of the petitioner is that theopposite party duly accepted rent till March 1997 at the rate of Rs. 650/- a month but when the petitioner in the month of May, 1997 sent the rent for April, 1997 at the rate of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-15-2000
Reported in : (2001)1CALLT396(HC)
G.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against an order dated 28-1-1987 passed by the learned 12th Court of the Additional District Judge. 24-Parganas in appeal affirming the judgment dated 12-7-1985 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit. For convenience the appellant shall herein after be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that by a deed of conveyance, Ext. A(6), dated 30-5-1978 the plaintiff absolutely conveyed 69 decimal of land at a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant. By an agreement dated 30-5-1978, Ext. 4(B). the defendant, after recording that the plaintiff had sold the aforesaid land and had made over possession thereof, agreed to reconvey the land to the plaintiff provided the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs.10,000/- within 30th Ashar, 1386 B.S. Both the deed of conveyance and the said agreement were executed on 15th Jaistha, 1385 B.S. which is equivalent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-09-2000
Reported in : (2000)3CALLT318(HC),2000LabIC2571
1. By this writ petition petitioner prayed that the writ in nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees under the respondent No. 1 forthwith. In pursuance of list of seniority as published by the respoondents in annexure 'A' and respondents be directed to fix the wages of the petitioners at par with the regular employees without any further delay.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union under the Indian Trade Union Act and petitioner No. 2 is General Secretary of the Union and petitioner Nos. 3 to 158 are the casual/contingent workers. The respondent No. 1 has been set up by the respondent No. 4 to carry out the research work in the field of Oil and Natural Gas within the territory of India. The respondent No. 1 for the purpose of carry out the research, employed some regular employees as well as engaged the workers on casual and contingent basis. There is a rules for recruitment of the regular employees but service condition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-19-2000
Reported in : (2000)3CALLT288(HC),[2001(88)FLR850],(2001)ILLJ643Cal
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. The jurisdiction of this Court to direct the appropriate Government to issue a notification under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called and referred for the sake of brevity of this case as 'the said Act') and to further direct the Appellant herein to absorb the writ petitioner respondents is in question in this appeal.2. The writ petitioners who were 171 in numbers filed an application under Article 226 of Constitution of India before this Court marked as C.O. No. 6268(W) of 1990 praying for the following reliefs :--'(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioners permanently in the regular establishment and to extend all service benefits as enjoyed by similarly circumstanced employees who are under the regular establishment of them; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to appoint any staff like the petitioners directly until and unless the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-04-2000
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ203Cal
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 30, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in C.O. No. 12456 (W) of 1996 on January 30, 1996, whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge allowed the writ application filed by the respondents herein questioning an order dated March 18, 1986 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 4 of 1981.2. The basic facts of the matter is not in dispute.The concerned employees were appointed by the respondents upon undergoing a selection process through a Selection Committee. 42 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee and out of them 39 were appointed. Complaints of irregularities of the selection were received by the Head Office of the first respondent herein and pursuant thereto an enquiry was conducted, whereafter, allegedly, on the ground of fraud having been practised upon the Corporation, certain employees were punished and the services...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-07-2000
Reported in : (2001)1CALLT205(HC),2001(1)CHN424
ORDERP.K. Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner herein was initially engaged on casual basis in the employment of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education and subsequently he was absorbed on permanent basis as Lower Division Clerk. It has been alleged by the respondent Council that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and on behalf of the respondent it has also been alleged that though the petitioner was repeatedly warned against unauthorised absence and was requested not to abstained from duty but the petitioner ignored the said lawful direction/instruction of the Council and again unauthorisely and irregularly absented himself from duty for a total period of 240 days between November, 1989 and October, 1990 without any prior leave of absence from the Council. 2. By Memo. No EST/520/91/90 dated 9.11.90, petitioner was served with a charge sheet by the President of the Council for unauthorisely and irregularly absenting himself from duty. It appears from the said charge sheet t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-30-2000
Reported in : (2001)1CALLT324(HC),2000(2)CHN880
ORDERThe aforesaid judgment delivered in writ petition being W.P. No. 13830(W) 1998 will also govern this writ petition as the facts and the points of law are similar. Accordingly, this writ petition also fails and the same is dismissed.In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will' be, however, no order as to costs.Let a xerox certified copy of this order alongwith the judgment delivered in W.P. No. 13830 (W) of 1998 be made available to the respective parties, if applied for, on urgent basis....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-19-2000
Reported in : 2001ACJ1375,(2000)3CALLT481(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1.This appeal Is directed against a Judgment and award dated 28th April, 2000 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4th Court, Alipore in M.A.C. No. 357 of 1997 under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded for death of Copal Chandra Hansda which took place on 3.8.97.2. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether only because the appellant No. 1 has got service on compassionate ground in place of her deceased husband, the learned Tribunal was correct in awarding a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- or not.3. Mr. Banik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the apex Court in Helan C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in : AIR1998SC3191 and submitted that the learned Tribunal is wrong in taking the factum of appointment on compassionate ground ...
Tag this Judgment!