Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-21-2000
Reported in : (2001)IIILLJ839Raj; 2000(4)WLC319
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court dated May 22, 1989, by which the claim of the respondent-workman had been allowed after holding that the termination of his services, vide order, dated August 8, 1984, was invalid, and the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the workman along with back wages and all other consequential benefits.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent-workman had been appointed on daily wages on probation of two years as a conductor vide Order No. 898 dated March 22, 1983 by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation). On January 25, 1984, the vehicle on which the workman had been working as conductor, was checked on Ganganagar-Gharsana route and out of 49-1/2 passengers, twelve passengers were found travelling without tickets. On further investigation, it was revealed that the workman had realised the fare from two passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-15-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)WLC524
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. A large number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955, as amended vide Notification dated 26-2-1977, being substantive ultra-vires and for quashing the order dated 1-3-1997 issued by the Inspector General of Stamps providing, the applicability of the amendment even in pending revisions. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 20 Biswas comprise of Aaraji No. 1028 at village Rayala, district Bhilwara, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. The said document was presented before the Registering Authority (respondent No. 3) for registration. However, the Authority took the view that the sale-deed, purported to have been made of an agricultural land, was in fact, sale deed of a commercial plot and the value of the land in dispute was required to be computed at the commercial rate and, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-03-2000
Reported in : (2002)IVLLJ746Raj
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. All these writ petitions have been filed against the impugned Award of the Labour Court dated May 14, 1998, by which the claim of the workmen had been accepted holding that the services of the workmen had been terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), but in lieu of reinstatement, certain amount of compensation has been granted to the workmen. 2. Cross writ petitions have been filed by the employer being aggrieved of the Award of compensation and by the workmen for not awarding reinstatement. As the employer is the same, facts are also identical and the Awards have also been made on similar line, all these petitions are disposed of by the common Judgment and for the same, the facts of Writ Petition No. 2623/1998 are being considered. 3. In the said case, the workman was employed in July, 1979 and he worked up to November, 1991 and it was alleged that his services were ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-05-2000
Reported in : 2000WLC(Raj)UC540; 2000(3)WLN163
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel.2. This appeal is under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 4.5.1991 in Claim Case No. 19 of 1983. The claim was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 arising out of an accident which took place on 12.7.1983 on the highway between Bhilwara and Ajmer within the municipal limits of Bhilwara, which resulted in death of Radheshyam, whose dependents six in number were the claimants who included the widow of the deceased,three dependent children and both parents. Parents have died since the pendency of this case. A claim for a sum of Rs. 7,15,000 was lodged against the present appellant, the insurer United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras with whom the vehicle involved in the accident has been insured, and Mathuralal, alleged to be the Driver of the vehicle. In the application it has been stated that the claimants do not know who the driver was but had said that the respondent No. 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-11-2000
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
Decided on : Apr-17-2000
Reported in : (2000)160CTR(Raj)331
ORDERB. J. Shethna, J.The short question involved in this matter is 'whether the conveyance allowance and the additional conveyance allowance can be exempted under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?' This question is already answered by me against the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1617/912. However, an attempt is made by learned counsel Mr. Kothari for the petitioner to distinguish my aforesaid judgment by submitting that on an incorrect statement made by learned counsel Mr. S. Bhandawat, this court took the aforesaid view. Mr. Kothari also tried to rely upon the judgment of Punjab High Court in CIT v. Chaman Lal Chandok . He also tried to submit that two other judgments reported in Life Insurance Corpn. Class I Officers Association v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. : [1998]229ITR510(Bom) and CIT v. E.A. Rajendran : [1999]235ITR514(Mad) relied by this court do not squarely cover the controversy about the additional conveyance allowance. However, he co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-19-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)WLN267
ORDERChauhan, J.(1). The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking employment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules, 1996').(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner's father died in harness on 23.4.94 while working as Class IV employee in the Co-operative Department and as the petitioner was minor at that lime, after passing Middle Standard Examination in the month of April, 1997, he applied for employment on compassionate ground under the said Rules of 1996 by submitting an application on 19.5.97. However, after correspondence at different levels in the Department, the application was rejected vide order dated 25.3.98 (Annex. 4) on the ground that he was below 18 years of age and was not eligible for appointment. The petition has been filed on the ground that under certain Circulars issued by the Competent Authority, a person is e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-24-2000
Reported in : AIR2000Raj407; 2000(2)WLN377
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition hasbeen filed for setting aside the election ofrespondent No. 2 as the Sarpanch of GramPanchayat, Panchu, tehsil Nokha, districtBikaner, as he stood disqualified even priorto the contest of the election under Section19(gg) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994inserted by the Ordinance issued on 25-12-1997. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the election of Gram Panchayat, Panchu was held on 31-1-2000 and respondent No. 2 Mr. Jetha Ram was elected as the Sarpanch. The instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that under Section 19 (gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'), as respondent No. 2 stood disqualified to become a candidate in the election for the reason that cognizance of the offences had been taken and the same is punishable with imprisonment for five years or more, therefore, this Court must declare him disqualified and restrain him to work' as 'Sarpanch. 3. Mr. I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-09-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)WLC257
V.S. Kokje, Actg. CJ.1. The appellant Surendra Pal Singh TT was nominated Director and Chairman of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). He was nominated as Director in place of the earlier Incumbent of the office Shri Ramnath Verma, as a representative of the producers of agricultural products. In the appointment order dated 25-6-1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) It was stated that the term of office would be three years from the date of appointment as per the Rules. On 31 -12-1998, the State Government nominated Shri N. R. Bhasin, Principal Secretary to Government of Rajasthan, Agriculture Department, as the Director and Chairman of the Board of Director of the Corporation in place of the petitioner Surendra Pal Singh TT. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order dated 31-12-1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by which Shri N. R. Bhasin was nominated Director and Chairman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-04-2000
Reported in : 2001(4)WLC221; 2007(2)WLN596
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition is a unique example wherein neither the Statutory Authorities nor the Court had ever passed the order considering the law in correct perspective. When impugned order was challenged in appeal as well as in writ petition, the writ petition was disposed of issuing direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits without realising that the appeal itself was not maintainable and the Appellate Authority, in compliance of the order of this Court, decided the appeal on merits. The order of the Appellate Authority is under challenge before this Court. In a similar manner, the Executive, without realising the seriousness of the order passed earlier by this Court and pendency of the appeal as well as writ petition, resorted to disciplinary proceedings and passed order imposing punishment without waiting for final disposal of the writ petition or appeal.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was ap...
Tag this Judgment!