Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-07-2010
1. These two appeals are preferred by the Regional Director of the E.S.I.Corporation against the order in I.C.Nos.32 & 57/2002 of the E.I.Court, Alappuzha. Both the cases were disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The point involved in I.C.No.32/2002 is that the applicant/establishment therein is a partnership firm running a vegetarian hotel in Ernakulam city. It is also conducting a training course relating to hotel services. It is contended that in the training school, trainees are taught by qualified persons and at the end of the training period, they are given certificates and if any vacancy arises in the hotel, they are absorbed and paid stipend. Similarly, performance allowance is also given to the other employees. It is contended that the trainees' stipend cannot be tacked on for the purpose of contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act. So also performance allowance shall not be tacked on with the wages for the said purpose. 3. In I.C.No.57/2002 also the similar quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-02-2010
1. This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.No.57/2006. The appellant before me is the applicant before the court below, who had moved an application for declaration to the effect that the applicant establishment is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I.Act. 2. According to the applicant, M/s. Jhothi Chemical Industries is a small scale industrial unit and it was never employed more than 8 persons and therefore, provisions of the Employees' Insurance Act cannot be extended to it. 3. On the contra, the E.S.I Corporation would contend that when inspections were effected by the authorised officers, they were able to find 13 persons on 5.5.2005 and 16 persons on 6.5.2005. Therefore they contend for the position that establishment is liable to be covered. 4. Both sides adduced evidence and the trial court on analysis found in favour of the Corporation and ordered the establishment to be covered under the E.S.I. Act. It is against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-25-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated October 10, 2003 in O.P.(MV)No.885/2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,83,000/- for the loss caused to the claimants on account of the death of deceased first claimant in a motor accident. The appellant is the third respondent/Insurance Company in the O.P. 2. During the pendency of the O.P., the first claimant died. His legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental petitioners 2 to 8 in the O.P. The accident happened on July 27, 2000 at about 5.45 a.m. while the deceased first claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL 7/J 5978 along Vypin-Munambam public road and when he reached near Njarakkal Hospital junction, Njarakkal, he was knocked down by the mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL 8/C 3578 driven by the second respondent. Deceased first claimant sustained the following injuries in the accident: Lacerated wound on the occipital region, righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-01-2010
Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker621
1. In these petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who claim to be A1, A2 and A4 to A9 in Crime No. 186 of 2010 of Agali Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 464, 465, 468, 420 and 120 B read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and Sec. 3 (1) (iv) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seek anticipatory bail. The petitioner in B.A. 5910 of 2009 is A4, the petitioner in B.A. 5914/2010 is A1, the petitioners in B.A. 6594 of 2010 claim to be A5 to A9 and the petitioner in B.A. 6673 of 2010 is A2. According to the petitioners, the names of the various persons arrayed as accused persons in the above crime, so far, are as follows:- A1 - Binu S. Nair of Agali in Palakkad District A2 - Joy K.S. of SholayurA3 - Sankaranarayanan @ Periya Thambi of Palakkad District A4 - Prem Shameer of Beppur, Kozhikode A5 - Chandrasekhara Panicker of Kottayam District A6 - Linish T.M. of Kottayam District A7 - T.V. Somasekharan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on : Jun-15-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/LIC in OP No. 31/2005 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to pay the policy amounts with interest at the rate of 9% from 24-02-2005 and costs of Rs. 900/- 2. It is the case of the complainant that she is the nominee of the endowment assurance policy issued by the second opposite party on 03-06-2003 to her husband with the assured sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. On payment of the annual premium of Rs. 26,428/-, the policy commenced on 22-05-2003. The second annual premium was due on 22-05-2004. The assured was employed in Kuwait. The policy was taken through the 3rd opposite party, LIC agent. In June 2004, the 3rd opposite party agent reminded the complainant with respect to the second premium and the premium amount of Rs. 26,428/- to be deposited within the grace period. The assured died in Kuwait on 12-10-2004 in a road traffic accident. The claim was repudiated as the amount collected by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on : May-25-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 06-09-2002 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 416/2000. The compliant therein was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents/opposite parties alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It was alleged that the repudiation of the insurance claim put forward by the complainant as nominee of the life assured would amount to deficiency of service and that the entrustment of the premium with the 3rd opposite party LIC Agent is to be treated as effective payment of the premium for the insurance policy. Thus, the complaint in OP 416/2000 was filed to get the insurance amount with 12% interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of the proceedings. 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version denying the alleged defiency of service. They contended that the policy issued infavour of V. Radhakrishnan, the son of the complainant Ragini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on : Apr-26-2010
SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The CDRF, Kozhikode, as per its order dated 18.05.2000 in O.P.53/2000, has directed the opposite parties to give pension to the complainant at Rs.433/- per month from 01.04.1998 with cost of Rs.500/- within two months from the date of the order and it is aggrieved by the said direction that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he was an employee of the opposite parties and that after retirement he was eligible to get pension @ Rs.433 per month and after commutation he was getting only Rs.313/- per month till 01.04.1998. It is his case that after the commutation period of 10 years is over he is entitled to get back the original pension of Rs.433/- per month and the opposite parties had declined the said payment. It is also his case that he was getting only Rs.313/- per month and alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed for directions to the opposite parties to give ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-22-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT350
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. It is a Scheduled Bank. It filed the Writ Petition, challenging Ext.Pl order of the Labour Court, Ernakulam.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents 2 to 8 were Head Clerks working under the appellant Bank in different branches. From the day they were appointed to that post, they were discharging the functions of Special Assistants also. So, they claimed that they were entitled to get special allowance, for discharging the functions of the Special Assistants. When their claim in that regard was not accepted by the appellant Bank, they moved the Labour Court, Ernakulam, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by filing claim petition Nos. 24 and 25 of 1993, 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of 1994. Those claim petitions were heard together by the Labour Court and Ext.P1 common order was passed by it, directing payment of special allowance to them. The relevant portion of Ext.Pl reads as follows:In the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-05-2010
P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The petitioner was a former employee of the third respondent bank. She retired from service on 29.2.2008. The petitioner was a member of the L.I.C. Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme. After she retired from service, the fourth respondent sanctioned payment of the sum of Rs. 4,76,043/= to the petitioner and thereafter forwarded a cheque for the said sum to the Secretary of the third respondent bank along with Ext.P2 letter dated 11.7.2008. After the cheque was received, the third respondent bank encashed the cheque and paid over the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/= to the petitioner in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 2,00,000/= was paid on 16.8.2008 and the second instalment of Rs. 1,00,000/= on 1.11.2008. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,76,043/= was not paid. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,76,043 towards gratuity. The petitioner also claims payment of the sum of Rs. 1,85,000/= as surrender value ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-05-2010
P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellant in this Writ Appeal is the first petitioner in O.P. No. 666 of 1996 and the respondents are the respondents therein. By judgment delivered on 15-2-2006, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby the first petitioner therein has filed this writ appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The appellant was the Managing Director of Southern Organics Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The said company had availed a loan of Rs. 8,30,000/- from the Kerala Financial Corporation, the first respondent herein. The loan was secured by a mortgage of the immovable assets of the company as per mortgage deed registered as document No. 2790 of 1978 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Edappally and by hypothecation of the plant and machinery. The company and its Directors, including the appellant, had executed Ext.R1(a) agreement dated 28.8.1978 undertaking to repay the loan in seventeen half yearl...
Tag this Judgment!