Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-22-1993
Reported in : 75(1993)CLT789; 1993(I)OLR358
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner impugns Annexure-1 dated 28-5-1991 by which he was informed by opp. party No. 2 M/s. Orissa Textile Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' the Company' also the Mills') that he would no more be required as Legal Adviser with effect from 1-6-1991. His case is that he was an employee of the Company and the impugned communications amount to termination of service which had been ordered without complying with the principles of natural justice, and so, he seeks reinstatement.2. Two points in the main need our determination :(1) Whether the petitioner was an employee of the Mills or was mere retainer as Legal Adviser?(2) Whether a direction to reinstate, even if the present be a case of termination of service as an employee, can be issued ?3. To answer the first question, some broad facts may be noted. The petitioner was provisionally appointed as a Junior Retained Lawyer vide Annexure 2 dated 19/20 November, 1975 on a monthly retaining fee of Rs. 100/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-09-1993
Reported in : II(1993)ACC623; 1994ACJ348; 1993(I)OLR569
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This appeal is against the decision of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and claimant is the appellant.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimant. The answer to the aforesaid question depends upon a true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. The case of the claimant is that he was going in the bus bearing registration number ORB 2520 as its Conductor on 27-2-1980. The said vehicle went off the road and capsized at village Sarang near Soro at about 11.20 A. M. On account of such accident the left leg and the hand of the claimant got fractured and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The claimant was then shifted to the hospital at Bhadrak and from there he was shifted to the S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-15-1993
Reported in : II(1993)ACC522; 1993(II)OLR122
A. Pasayat, J.1. A boy aged seven years sustained fatal injuries on 22-1-1987 and died. His parents lodged a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, the 'Tribunal'). According to them, the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent operation of the road roller belonging to the Executive Engineer, National High Way and Project, Cuttack Division. The claim was for Rs. 50,000/-. In fact two applications were filed-one Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act') and the other Under Section 92-A of the said Act. Both the applications were tagged up and were disposed of by a common order. The Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs. 15,000/-. The quantification is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeeal.2. According to Mr, R.B. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the quantification is patently on the lower side considering the age of the deceased and his parents. Mr. S. P. Mohapatra, learned co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-13-1993
Reported in : 1993(II)OLR490
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment of the Insurance Court, Cuttack in Insurance Misc. Case No. 4/78.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the conclusion of the Insurance Court that the Satyabadi Press and 'The Samaj' are the two distinct units is at all sustainable in law. The employees working in the establishment of 'The Samaj' were not covered under the definition of 'employee' Under Section 2(9) of the Act until the said definition was amended in the year 1968. After the definition was. amended the officers of the Regional Director, Employees' State insurance Corporation held some enquiry and then demanded contribution in respect of the employees serving in 'The Samaj from the Satyabadi Press for the period 29-1-1968 till December, 1976. As the contribution amount was not p3id certificate proceeding was initiated. The management of the Satya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-14-1993
Reported in : 76(1993)CLT893; [1994(68)FLR666]; (1994)IILLJ19Ori
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether 'over-time allowance' paid to employees would be included in the definition of 'wages' in Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for the purpose of the employer's contribution on the same. On this question there is a sharp cleavage of opinion between the High Courts of India, the Calcutta, Karnataka and Rajasthan High Courts having taken the view that the said payment would not be included in the definition of 'wages', whereas the Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Kerala and Delhi High Courts having taken the view that the said payment would be included in the definition of 'wages'. There has been no authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the question though there has been some observation in some incidental matters and so far as this Court is concerned, there has been no decision at all and, therefore, it is necessary to have an in-depth examination of the point in issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-01-1993
Reported in : I(1994)ACC14; 1994ACJ1137
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The insurer is the appellant challenging the award of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- on the ground that the deceased being a passenger of the vehicle in question, the liability of the insurer is only Rs. 15,000 as provided in Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. The claimants' case before the Tribunal was that on the date of the accident on 6.8.1987, deceased Maheswar Rout was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. OBC 595 and when the bus dashed against the level crossing and became immobile, seeing an approaching train, the deceased got down and had run away to a distance of fifty feet when the train collided with the bus and the bus overturned and capsized and fell on the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. The claimants had also stated that the deceased was a helper under the Orissa State Electricity Board and was drawing Rs. 1,300/- per month and at the relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-04-1993
Reported in : I(1994)ACC380; 1994ACJ1125
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act'), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer') calls in question legality of award made by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Southern Division, Berhampur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') holding that Kanduri Nayak (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in respect of an accident wherein the vehicle bearing registration No. OSG 1155 belonging to Atanu Kumar Behera (hereinafter referred to as 'the owner') was involved. The stipulation of a higher rate of interest in case of default by non-payment is also challenged.2. The fact situation as presented by the claimant is as follows:On 27.4.1987 one Abhimanyu Nayak (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') aged about 12 was going to Bhanjanagar to attend his school. He was proceeding on the left side of Berhampur-Bhanjanagar Road. Suddenly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-05-1993
Reported in : 1994(I)OLR88
A. Pasayat, J.1. This appeal though surfacially involves a a dispute relating to date of death of owner of a vehicle, because of seminally important aspects integrally connected with that issue, the learned counsel for the parties have pressed several points for consideration and have addressed us at length. In this background, it has become necessary to consider all the points raised.2. The factual backdrop necessary to be referred to for adjudication of the intricating questions which we shall deal infra is as follows ;An accident took place on 6-9-1988, wherein a vehicle bearing registration No. ORP 5510 was involved. The registered owner of the vehicle was Brajabandhu Senapati (hereinafter referred to as the 'owner/ insured')- One Govind Chandra Naik (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lost his life in the accident. His widow Harapriya and parents Bhikari Charan Naik and Musi Dei lodged a claim for compensation on 28-11-1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs Under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!