Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-25-1977
Reported in : (1978)IILLJ444Ker
Subramonian Poti, J.1. The application of the doctrine of notional extension of employment arises for consideration in this case. this is an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut in an application under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act. The applicant before the Employees' Insurance Court, Calicut, which is the first respondent in this appeal, was employed with M/s. J. & P. Coats (P) Limited, Koratty, the second respondent in the appeal and he is an insured employee. While proceeding to the factory from his house for reporting for duty on 26-6-1971, he met with an accident at about 4-15 p.m. The accident took place at about 1 kilometre to the north of the factory. The applicant was riding a bicycle at that time and he was hit by a lorry belonging to the employer. As a result of the accident his collar bone was fractured and he sustained other injuries. He was under treatment till 6-7-1971. The worker was totally and permanently incapacitated for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-21-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Ker161
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These three revision petitions were adjourned by our learned brother Viswanatha lyer, J. to be heard by a Division Bench. It was submitted before the learned Judge that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunhi Umma (1973 Ker LT 138): (AIR 1974 Ker 162) required reconsideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ashfaq v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. (AIR 1976 SC 2161). The learned Judge felt that the question involved was fairly important.2. The respondent in an application for eviction before the Rent Control Court under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, filed an appealagainst the decree to the appellate authority under the Act. Owing to the uncertainty in the identity of the forum where the appeal had to be presented, it flitted between the Sub Court, Parur, and the District Court, Ernakulam, till it was eventually decided by this Court in O. P. Nos. 353, 363, and 364 of 1971...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-23-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Ker1
ORDERKu. P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petitioner in both the cases is the same. He is the appellant in E.S.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1976 on the file of this Court. The said appeals were dismissed by a common judgment on 29-11-1976. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner decided to file an appeal to a Division Bench after obtaining leave under Section 5 of the High Court Act. He obtained copies of the judgments and decrees on 18-2-1977. In the meanwhile, the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976 came into farce on 1-2-1977 and Section 100A was introduced into the Code. He was instructed by his counsel thatby virtue of the above provision read with Section 100A of the Amendment Act, no further appeal was maintainable against the decision in second appeal. The petitioner, therefore, did not move for obtaining leave to file appeals against the decision. But subsequently, this Court held in Raghavan Pillai v Sainaba Beev (1977 Ker. L.T. 417) that the ban under Section 110A of the Act has no ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-17-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Ker166; (1978)IILLJ226Ker
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These three writ petitions challenge the action of the Chief Justice of this Court in cancelling a prior order dated 3-7-1971, on the basis of which promotions were effected in a certain category of the High Court staff from 1-7-1968. It was ordered that the cancellation was to be given effect to only from the Chief Justice's decision to cancel, viz. 7-9-1974 and not from 1-7-1968 from which date the cancelled order took effect. This is the grievance of the petitioners. The writ petitions will be dealt with seriatim. The facts will be noticed in detail in O. P. 340 of 1976, and supplemented, if necessary, with the additional facts, where present, in the other two writ petitions,O. P. No. 340 of 1976.2. The petitioner in this writ petition, an Assistant Grade 1 in the High Court Services, was a lower division clerk (or an Assistant Grade II as it was redesignated) prior to 1-7-1968, a material date 'for purposes of all the three writ petitions. Respondents 5 to...
Tag this Judgment!