Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-08-1998
Reported in : 1999(2)AWC1136
P.K. Jain, J.1. The claimants-respondents in this appeal Manish Porwar, Ashish Porwar, Km. Meenakshi Gupta and Km. Neha Gupta filed claim petition under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs. 23,96.000 for the death of their father Munnu Lal Gupta and mother Smt. Kusum Lata.2. The facts briefly stated are that on 27,3.94 both the deceased were returning to their house after meeting Ratan Lal, elder brother of Munnu Lal Gupta. On way to their house, their Hero Honda Motor-cycle went out of order. Deceased Munnu Lal Gupta parked the Vehicle on left side of the road and while he was examining the defect. Tanker No. U. P. 30/2002 overran both the victims on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. Both the victims died at the spot.3. The claimants alleged that Munnu Lal Gupta was aged 49 years and 7 months. His date of birth is 7th August, 1944 and he was employed as Junior Engineer in U. P. Jal Nigam and was drawing salary of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-08-1998
Reported in : 2000ACJ30
P.K. Jain, J.1. The claimants-respondents in this appeal Manish Porwar, Ashish Porwar, Meenakshi Gupta and Neha Gupta filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 23,96,000 for the death of their father Munnu Lal Gupta and mother Kusum Lata.2. The facts briefly stated are that on 27.3.1994 both the deceased were returning to their house after meeting Ratan Lal , elder brother of Munnu Lal Gupta. On way to their house their Hero Honda motor cycle went out of order. Deceased Munnu Lal Gupta parked the vehicle on left side of the road and while he was examining the defect, tanker No. UP 30-2002 overran both the victims on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. Both the victims died at the spot.3. The claimants alleged that Munnu Lal Gupta was aged 49 years and 7 months. His date of birth is 7.8.1944 and he was employed as Junior Engineer in U.P. Jal Nigam and was drawing salary of Rs. 6,635 per month. He ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-19-1998
Reported in : 1999(2)AWC1069
Dr. Maithli Sharan, J.1. This special appeal is preferred against the order dated 16.7.1993 passed by teamed singhe Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8024 of 1989, Ram Chandra Sharma u. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others. allowing the petition filed by the respondent.2. The respondent filed the writ petition, praying for a writ of mandamus, commanding the appellants to regularise his services on the post of Care-taker by providing him a regular pay scale, allowances, bonus, other benefits, and conditions of service as are available to Class IV employees of the Corporation, with effect from 5.1.1977.3. The grounds alleged in the writ petition were that the petitioner respondent had been continuously in service in the guest house of the Corporation with effect from 5.1.1977, his services were found to be satisfactory, and, thus, he had acquired the status of a regular employee of the Corporation by virtue of his continuous service for more than 240 days. It was averred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-06-1998
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ651All; (1999)1UPLBEC463
ORDERShitla Pd. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited) against the respondents the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for issuing writ of certiorari to quash the order dated January 14, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The second relief sought for is writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to implement the aforesaid order.2. Annexure-17 to the writ petition is an order passed by the Assistant provident Fund Commissioner, the Sub-Regional Office, Dehradoon, exercising power under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act only). By this order the authority concerned has determined the money due from the petitioner which is a covered Unit under Code No. UP/ 1261, Dehradoon un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-03-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)AWC462; [1999(81)FLR658]
S.R. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order/ recovery certificate dated 19.9.1998 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by - the Additional Commissioner, Agra Kshetra, Agra In exercise of powers under Section 6H of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on application moved on behalf of the Co-operative Bank Staff Association. 97 Shastri Nagar, Kirti Nagar, Mathura--an association of employees of the Mathura Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Mathura for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,75.059.79. The impugned recovery certificate purports to have been issued for the recovery of the money due to 113 employees/workmen of the Mathura Zila Sahkari Bank under a settlement arrived at between the petitioner (Management of the district Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mathura) on one hand and the workmen represented by U. P. Bank Employees Union, Central Office, Subhash Road. Aligarh on the other In adjudication case No. 53 of 1963. The money claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-02-1998
Reported in : 1998(4)AWC368
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.5.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, whereby he declared the accommodation in question as vacant under the provisions of Section 12 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. Respondent No. 2 is landlady of the accommodation in question, it was let out to the petitioner by her in the year 1984. Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 12 of the Act for declaring the disputed accommodation as vacant alleging that the petitioner was a tenant of the accommodation in question on monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. He was transferred to Hindola district Tehri and on transfer, he has taken a residence at Chukuwala but he has got the disputed house locked. H was stated that the accommodation in question be declared as vacant and be released in her favour as she needed it bona fide for residential purpose. The petitioner filed objection. It was stated that the house in question was constructed in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-27-1998
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ1656All
S.C. Verma, J. 1. Assailing the award of the Labour Court dated August 28, 1981, the petitioner have alleged that the appointment of the workmen was time bound and after expiry of the tenure of appointment, temporary services automatically came to an end. The respondents workmen cannot claim the benefit of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the provision of retrenchment as such does not apply in those cases where the appointment itself was time bound. It has also been alleged that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, it was not necessary to have taken the approval or sanction of the Labour Court as required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for termination of the services of respondents workmen. 2. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh v. Suresh Chandand Anr., (1978-II-LLJ-1)(SC). 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 4. No one has appeared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-08-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)AWC503
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. In Uirendra Pal Singh and others v. District Assistant Ragistrar, Co-operative Societies, Etah and another. 1980, UPLBEC 202, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :'That though the age of retirement of employees of some of the co-operative societies was originally 60 years under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, the age of retirement has now been made 58 years. We are unable to see any force in this submission. Regulation 24 (ii) itself provides that if before the coming into operation of the Regulations the society had entered into any contract with an employee on the date of his employment whereby he was entitled to continue beyond 58 years. The rule of retirement at the age of 58 years shall not apply and the age of retirement shall be governed by the contract. Therefore, if in any case there is a contract between a Cooperative Society and an employee entered into before the Regulations came into force stipulating the age of retirement as 60...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-23-1998
Reported in : 1998(4)AWC62
B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-12-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)AWC335
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner had filed a suit for a declaration that his termination of service is illegal and invalid and that he is entitled to continue in service as well as to the payment of salary. A preliminary issue was framed as to the maintainability of the suit. The trial court had held that the suit is not maintainable. Against the satd order. Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 1989 was preferred. The said appeal was allowed and it was held that the suit is maintainable as framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. P. Bajpayee had argued that in view of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal Act, the suit is not maintainable. He also contended that even if the suit is not barred by Section 6 of the said Act by reason of Chapter 111 of the Regulation framed under the U. P. intermediate Education Act, 1921, the civil court can assume jurisdiction in respect of termination of service of an employee other than teacher.2. Sri G. D. Misra, learned ...
Tag this Judgment!