Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-26-2004
Reported in : (2004)IIILLJ380Guj
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner Trade Union challenges the provisions of Section 3 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and Section 30 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, as unconstitutional, on the ground that they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also challenges the communication at Annexure 'B' dated 22nd May 1989 sent by the respondent No.1 - Life Insurance Corporation of India to the petitioner Trade Union informing it that its proposed 'UCO Bank Employees' Death Benefits Scheme' contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and Section 30 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and the notice dated 6-11-1989, at Annexure 'D' to the petition, calling upon the petitioner to withdraw the said Scheme.2. According to the petitioner, it is a registered trade union in existence since 1957 and as per the rules constituting the Union, one of its object was to provide funds for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-02-2004
Reported in : (2005)1GLR1
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Petitioners were serving in the Security Force, a Branch in the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL) Baroda, till 1972. Sometime during this year, Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), proposed to Management of IPCL that policy of the Central Government required security of CISF to protect --------------------------------------------------------- oted Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? the Industries of the Government. Therefore, Security Force maintained by IPCL was sought to be inducted into CISF. When this proposal was conveyed to the employees of Security Force of IPCL, which included the petitioners and some other employees, induction was protested since it would cause injustice and inconvenience to the petitioners. It was stated that induction into CISF would mean transfer anywhere in India, which was neither conducive nor in the interest of the petitioners. Moreover, they had been engaged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-08-2004
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR480]; (2005)1GLR135
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.H. Pathak on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP Ms.Nandini Joshi appearing on behalf of respondents.2. In these two petitions, the Dailywagers who are working with the Forest Department, have filed these two separate petition claiming benefits of Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and benefit of equality on the basis of equal pay for equal work. So far as the first petition Special Civil Application No.7923 of 1996 is concerned, this Court [ Coram : Justice J. N. Bhatt, J. ] has at the time of admitting this matter, on 16.10.96 issued Rule and granted ad-interim relief restrained the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners named as at Annexure-C with a clarification that it will be open for the respondents to terminate their services in accordance with law. It is further ordered that the petitioners named in Annexure-C shall be paid wages calculated or determined at the minimum of the pay scale applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-06-2004
Reported in : 2005CriLJ1231
D.H. Waghela, J.1. These bail applications, pending since June 2003, have a chequered history during their pendency and preceding that. Offences against several accused persons, including the petitioners, were first registered vide F.I.R. dated 23.10.2002 with D.C.B. Police Station, Surat and the applications of the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were rejected by the Sessions Court on 27.11.2002. Upon their filing similar applications in this Court, by order dated 7.2.2003, assurance and undertakings of the petitioners to repay the amounts due to the complainant bank, then running into Rs. 55 crores, were recorded, and the applications were allowed without entering into the merits of the prima facie case appearing against the petitioners. The petitioners having failed to abide by the undertakings, the subsequent bail applications of the petitioners were rejected as withdrawn.1.1 Thereafter, the present applications were presented, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-09-2004
Reported in : (2004)3GLR2040; (2005)ILLJ400Guj
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The petitioner-Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., by way of this petition has challenged the order dated 6th February, 1999 in Gratuity Case No. 44 of 1998 passed by the Controlling Authority appointed under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 10th September, 1999.2. The short facts of the case as they emerge from the record of the petition are that the respondent at the relevant point of time was working as Manager (Agro Project) and was drawing salary of Rs. 11,600-00 p.m. It is the case of petitioner that for holding the aforesaid post and position, high degree of responsibility, trust and confidence are required from the incumbent holding the office and in the present case, the respondent was authorized on behalf of the petitioner to deal with its customers to enter into financial transactions as well powers to withdraw the money from and/or make payments on behalf of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-25-2004
Reported in : (2004)3GLR2142
Akil Kureshi, J.1. The petitioner who was a judicial officer has by way of the present petition challenged the notification dated 11.12.98 issued by the Government of Gujarat, by which the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired from service with effect from the date of the notification.2. Brief facts leading to the present petition can be noted at the outset. The petitioner was working as second Joint Civil Judge (SD), Ahmedabad Rural from 10.6.91 to 18.10.92. With effect from 19.10.92, the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural and continued to work on the said post till 25.11.93. For having committed certain misconduct, pending departmental proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 21.1.94. On 6.8.94, a chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioner containing in all 12 charges against her. Shri M.C.Patel, the then Additional Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad was appointed as the I...
Tag this Judgment!