Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1168Raj; 1993(1)WLC415
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Order of reference dated October 6, 1982 (Ex.5) passed by the Government under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) and the award dated September 21, 1984 (Ex.7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, in I.T. Case No. 306/82 have been challenged in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. is an instrumentality of Central Government having its Head Office at Bangalore. It has 18 factories/ units all over India including the one at Ajmer. H.M.T. Shramik Sangh is a registered Trade Union of the employees and is recognised by the Managing Committee of the petitioner company. The respondent No. 2 submitted a charter of demand to the management of the petitioner company and then approached the Conciliation Officer cum Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ajmer. Since the parties could not settle the matter a failure report was subm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1982WLN321
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. High sounding, well-intentioned, radical directive of 'participation of workers in management' of Industries, an important golden relic of 42nd amendment has with stood scrapping by and scrutiny of 44th Amendment and is still enshrined as Article 43A of the Constitution. Whether this directive accepted and honoured or kept as a decoration and illumination of statute only, is a question on which legislature and, not judiciary, can adjudicate.2. The echo of this Article which was a red letter day for the workers (Kamgars) in consonance with preamble proclaiming inter alia 'Justice Social, & economic and equality of Status and Opportunity for the lowest in the ladder may now be first heard in the following historical directive of part IV:43-A. The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry.3. Cost work norms...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN553
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. As a common question of law arises in these four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have been heard together at the request of the learned Counsel and will be disposed of by a single judgment.2. Petitioner Rameshwarlal (in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 70 of 1968) was an employee of the State Government as a lower Division clerk in the Rajasthan State Roadways Department. He passed the Accounts Clerk's qualifying Examination in 1964. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was constituted, and the petitioner's name appeared in the seniority list of the lower division clerks of the Corporation. He was selected for promotion as a Commercial Accounts Clerk, against a temporary post, by order Ex. 3 dated August 7, 1965, and was posted in that capacity at Udaipur. The State Government issued a notification on April 15, 1966 by which the employees were asked to exercise their option whether they wanted to continue in the service of the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988WLN(UC)135
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Mr. S.R. Singhi invited attention of this Court to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 272(A)/72 LIC of India and Ors. v. Shri B.N. Bhatnagar decided on 5-10-1985 by the Jaipur Bench. It has been held that the Life Insurance Corporation Development Officers (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1978 and the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Sixth Amendment Regulations, 1978 shall have overriding effect over the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the provisions contained in Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981 where by Sub-sections (2A), (2B) and (2C) have been added to Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act. The validity of the said amendments have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Nachna v. Union of India : (1982)ILLJ110SC .3. In view of the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj249
ORDERJagatnarayan, J.1. This is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of Vishveshwar Nath Bhargava-respondent to the Lok Sabha from the Ajmer Parliamentary Constituency. The petition has been filed by one Ramlal, an elector of the Constituency. It has been contested the by returned candidate.2. The grounds on which the petition is based appear from the following issues which were framed in the case:1. (A) Is the office of pramukh of a Zila Parishad in Rajasthan (1) under the Government and is it (2) an office of profit within the meaning of Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution? 1. (B) Is the amount of Rs. 300/- which respondent No. 1 was admittedly entitled to draw as Pramukh of Zila Parishad Salary or honorarium or compensatory allowance? 1. (C) Did respondent No. 1 not draw the above amount from the second week of January 1967 up to the date of election? If so, what is its effect? 1. (D) Is the office exempt abov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas872(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. The company petition was admitted on May 12, 1989, and it was directed that the same be advertised and published. Under the present order, the application dated August 11, 1989, filed by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short 'RIICO') seeking leave of the court to remain out of the winding up proceedings, is to be disposed of.2. RIICO is a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), and the entire shareholding of RIICO is held and controlled by the Government of Rajasthan. It paid three loans, being the first loan of Rs. 16.50 lakhs, the second loan of Rs. 10.58 lakhs and the third loan of Rs. 0.25 lakhs, total Rs. 27.33 lakhs to Asup Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., respondent-company. The said loans were secured by the respondent-company by mortgage and hypothecation of its existing and future assets with RIICO. The aforesaid loans were secured by equitable mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2006ACJ241
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The instant first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.7.1987 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff-appellant for recovery of Rs. 36,000.2. Briefly put, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit with the averments in the plaint that the defendant was the Corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956. The plaintiff husband late Belaram submitted a proposal for insurance of his life for a sum of Rs. 25,000 on 29.11.1976 to Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ajmer Division, Ajmer (L.I.C for short). According to the plaintiff, the proposal was accepted and consequently first yearly instalment of extra premium amounting to Rs. 2,245 paid by the proposer was adjusted and policy No. 25833199 under the Table and Term 24-15 was issued to Belaram commencing the risk from 25.2.1977. The second yearly instalment due on 25.2.1978 was also paid and the policy rema...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1264; 2006(1)WLC335
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. It is defendant's special appeal filed against judgment & decree dt. 28.5.1993 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer whereby dismissal of plaintiff dt. 11.5.76 has been set aside with the direction for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and affirmed by learned Single Judge while dismissing appeal vide judgment dt. 28.5.96.2. Brief facts relevant to examine controversy are that plaintiff initially joined service on probation as Development Officer on 5.4.64 and was confirmed from 1.4.66. His service conditions are regulated by Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 ('Staff Regulations') framed in exercise of powers vested under Clauses (b) & (bb) of Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC').3. Charge sheet dt. 16.4.74 imputing six charges was served upon plaintiff. Pending inquiry, he was placed under suspension vide order dt. 9.8.74. A supplementary charge sheet was also served on 21...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992WLN(UC)442
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This judgment would decide DB Civil Special Appeals Nos. 53 & 136 of 1992, as in both of them, the same point of law in involved.2. DB Civil Special Appeal No. 53 of 1992 arises from an order dated 15th Jan., 1992, passed by a learned Singl Judge of this Court, in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5945 of 1991, filed by appellant Dahra Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Dahra, Tehsil Kumar, in District-Bharatpur. The other DB Civil Special Appeal No. 136 of 1992 arises from order dated 20th Feb., 1992, passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6969 of 1991, filed by appellant Tara Singh & Ram Avtar. Respondent No. 1 in both these writ petitions was The Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited (for short, hereinafter, 'the IFFCO'). While in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5945 of 1991, respondents Nos. 2 & 3 were Election Officers, in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6969 of 1991, respondent No. 2 was the Returning Officer of the IFFCO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj171; 2002(5)WLC455
Madan, J.1. The petitioner as per his case was engaged as Electrical Supervisor on work charge basis by Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the Authority' of JDA) (respondent) with effect from 1.12.1983. His work was discontinued after some time as it was a case of contractual appointment for a fixed period and he worked on the said post upto February, 1984. Thereafter in January, 1985 he was again engaged on muster roll basis and he worked as such for the period January, 1985, February, 1985, March, 1985 and May 1985 only. Thereafter he was time and again engaged by the respondent Authority for a few days as and when required. Thereafter on 27.7.1987 by an order passed by the Executive Engineer of the Authority, it was directed that the petitioner should not be engaged on muster roll basis as he has been working with the Authority for some time and from date of issuance of the aforesaid order, no functionary of the Authority shall henceforth be authorised to give appointment afre...
Tag this Judgment!