Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(1)WLC452; 1992(1)WLN500
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. In both these writ petitions a common question of law about the applicability of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 to the employees of the petitioner Bank, is involved and, therefore, I have considered it proper to dispose them of by a common order.2. Briefly stated the facts of Writ Petition No. 4088/89 are that the non-petitioner No. 2 filed an application before the Prescribed Authority, Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment, Act, 1958 for Sikar District on 30-3-89 alleging that he was in the employment of the Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner Bank'), w.e.f. 1-1-79. He had remained posted as Manager and there was no complaint against his work. He was removed from service on 8-3-89 without any notice and without payment of salary in lieu of notice. No enquiry was held against him before termination of service and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. He claimed that the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(2)WLN550
V.S. Dave, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus seeking direct on against the respondents to complete the process of elections of the Directors in Rajasthan Financial Corporation to be elected in pursuance of notice dated September 1, 1990 and to conduct the aforesaid elections of the basis of the voter-list, Ex. 1, after giving credit of 1425 shares to the petitioner for the purpose of his being elected as Director under Section 10(e) read with Section 4(8) Clause (d) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SFC Act'). A prayer for writ of certiorari was also made for quashing and setting aside the resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on September 22, 1990.2. It would be essential to quote certain facts before dealing with the contentions raised in this writ petition. Rajasthan Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the RFC'), is creation of statute of State Fin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(3)WLC575; 2002(1)WLN338
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. In view of the conflicting judgment of this Court in Bhimsen v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991 RCC 421 and Kunj Bihari Lal and Jagdis v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1984 RCC 42, an order was passed on 3.12.1993 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 114/93 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur (as he then was) referring the matter to the larger bench to resolve the controversy as to whether Section 67 of the Rajasthan Excise Act shall prevail as against Section 468 Cr.P.C. or not.2. The above criminal misc. petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court which dismissed the matter on 14.2.2001. Thus, the controversy referred by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur could not be resolved.3. A similar controversy is also involved in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 203/2001 which came up for hearing before Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.P. Gupta on 7.5.2001. Adopting the reasoning in the reference order dated 3.12.1993 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 114/93 the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1168Raj; 1993(1)WLC415
..... under section 5a and section 5b, respectively, 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 corporations act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the life insurance corporation of india established under section 3 of the life insurance corporation 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 and credit guarantee corporation act, 1961 (47 of 1961) or thecentral warehousing corporation establisbed under section 3 of the warehousing corporation act, 1962 ..... (supra), the reference made by the state government was to the effect that all workers who are working with thecontractors on permanent jobs should be made permanent and recruitment from outside be stopped. this court examined the scope of the provisions of 1947 act vis-a-vis provisions of 1970 act and held that terms and conditions of employment of contract labour are regulated by the provisions of 1970 act and, therefore, the provisions of industrial disputes act are not applicable. the learned single judge noted that, 'in the present case, there does not appear to be any dispute between the parties that the contract labour was employed under the provisions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)314
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the award dated May 1, 1982 passed by the Labour Judge, Bikaner, Petitioner has raised only two points before me during the course of argument; (i) that the State Government was not appropriate authority, as defined Under Section 2(e) read with Section 14 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to make the reference; and (ii) that the labour Court was not justified in granting the relief of re-instatement and 50% salary.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the case of Som Prakash v. Union of India . The relevant portion of Head Note 'A' leads as under:The preponderant considerations for pronouncing an entity as State agency or instrumentality are (i) financial resources of the State being the chief funding source (ii) functional charter being governmental in essence, (iii) plenary control residing in Government, (iv) prior history of the same activity having been carried on by Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER State Farm Corporation vs. Labour Court, of India & anr. Sri Ganganagar & ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2978/2000 under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order:8. h of May, 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Mr. Manish Shishodia with Mr. Arjun Bhattar, Counsel for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. BY THE COURT:1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 8.9.1999 by which the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of respondent-Jamil Ahmed along with 50% back wages from 10.2.1999.2. The respondent no.2 Jamil Ahmed approached the Conciliation Officer, inter alia, alleging that he had been retrenched illegally. A reference was made vide Notification dated 10.2.1993 on the basis of which a case was registered before the Labour Court, Bikaner. Respondent no.2 submitted his claim petition contending that he had worked from 15.11.89 to 16.11.1990...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ723Raj; 1997(3)WLC440; 1997(1)WLN613
..... board of trustees and the state board of trustees constituted under section 5a and section 5b, respectively, of the employees' provident funds and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the 'indian airlines' and 'air india' corporations established under section 3 of the air corporations act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or 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 of india ..... in this behalf by the central government, the central government. the question which arises is: has the textile industry been specified as controlled industry in this behalf by the central government? it is true that the textile industry is controlled by the provisions of the act 65 of 1951 and in that sense it is controlled industry, but that would not be enough to attract the application of section 2(a)(i) of the act. what this latter provision requires is that the central govern- ment must specify 'in this behalf' that the industry in question is a controlled industry; in other words the specification must be made by the central government by reference to, and for the purpose of, the provi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001ACJ1834; AIR2000Raj327; 2000(4)WLC311
Arun Madan, J.1. This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 8-4-93 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhalawar by which he had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for their claims of payment of assured sum to the tune of Rs. 64,332/- plus bonus accrued on three policies in question, but declined to grant interest on the decretal amount. Hence, this first appeal is confined only to the question of liability of the respondent, Life Insurance Corporation Branch, Jhalawar (for short 'LIC') to pay interest for the period after the death of policy-holder and upon repudiation of their claim having been held illegally and upon holding the nominees (plaintiffs) of the deceased policy-holder entitled to the assured sum under the Impugned judgment by the trial Court.2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that Pannalal took three policies on his own life from the respondent-LIC as per following details :--Policy No.Date of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1965Raj84
ORDER1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner Shri Kanhaiyalal is a registered graduate of the University of Rajastnan. By Resolutions Nos. 24 and 21, dated the 28th of January, 1958 and 8th of January 1959 respectively, the University of Rajasthan, which is Respondent No. 1 in this Writ Petition, decided to award the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy to Respondent No. 4 Shri Madan Lal Sharma, who was a Lecturer in the Maharaja's Sanskrit College, Jaipur, and the said degree was conferred on him. According to the petitioner, Respondent No. 4 managed to get the aforesaid resolution passed at the meetings of the Syndicate by exercising his influence on some members of the Syndicate.The contention of the petitioner is that Respondent No. 4 had never applied for being awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy but had applied only for the degree of 'Vachaspati'; that for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under Ordinance No. 124, made und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN645
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction, order or writ in the nature of certiorari and prohibition to bring up and quash the order of reversion dated August 10, 1978, passed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short the Board) in respect of the petitioner and to restrain the Board from giving effect to the impugned order. The impugned order which is Annexure 4 to the petition is in these terms:Shri R.K. Kulshrestha who is continuing against the temporary post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis is hereby reverted to the post of Asstt. Engineer with immediate effect.On reversion as Asstt. Engineer, services of Shri R.K. Kulshrestha are placed at the disposal of the Chief Engineer (Const. & Gen.), RSEB, Jaipur.By order,sd/-(Harish Nayyer)Secretary2. The case of the petitioner as set out in his petition may be briefly stated here. The petitioner joined service of the Board as a Junior Engineer on June 2, 1959. He was p...
Tag this Judgment!