Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE24H DAY OF OCTOBER20132ND KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 21190 of 2013 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- SHWAS HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, GROUND FLOOR, SHWAS MYSTIC HEIGHTS-1, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, EROOR P.O., VYTTILA, KOCHI-682306, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SREENI PARAMESWARAN, AGED38YEARS, S/O. M.G.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. BY ADVS.SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.K.V.GEORGE SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.2. THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, SHANI MANZIL, T.C. 25/3326, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GRADE-II, ERNAKULAM1T CIRCLE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.4. SMITHA FRANCIS ALIAS SMITHA AJAY, VILLA NO. 6, MYSTIC BELLS, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, EROOR ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ54AP
Punnayya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Hyderabad in E.I. case No. 9 of 1972. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board who is the petitioner in the lower Court is the appellant herein.2. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation. Hyderabad respondent, demanded the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 646.80 towards employer's special contribution and a sum of Rs. 3,452.84 towards employees' contribution for the period from I. 10.1968 to 31-3-1971. But the appellant failed to deposit the same and hence the respondent-Corporation moved the District Collector, Karimnagar to recover these amounts under the Revenue Recovery Act as arrears of land revenue.3. The District Collector, therefore, issued a show-cause notice on 26-4-1972 to the appellant calling upon them to explain as to why the property of the appellant should be attached for the realisation of the said amounts. The appellant submitted an explanation stating that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.151 OF2013TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.152 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.833 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1797 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.932 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1796 OF2013CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.144 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012IN TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.313 OF2014TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.312 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.2524 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.37 OF2015Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2012 & c onnected matters Page 1 of 567 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.220 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.674 OF2015WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.921 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.470 OF2015WRIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)No.11837/2015, CM Nos. 31446/2015, 5331/2016, 43454/2016 17381/2016, 43435/2016, 46077/2016 & 17519/2016 % Reserved on :28. h August, 2017 Date of decision :12. h October 2017 BALARAJ JADHAV & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Govind Jee and Mr. Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Mr. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC for UOI with Ms. Seerat Singh and Mr. Aditya Goyal, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Yakesh Anand and Nimit Mathur, Advs. for R- 2/ESIC. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP Mr. Philomon Kani, Ms. Kriti Handa and Mr. Vignaraj Pasayat, Advs. for R3/CBI. Mr. T.Singhdev, Mr. Tarun Verma and Ms. Biakthansangi, Advs. for R-4/MCI. with W.P.(C)No.11837/2015 Page 1 of 38 CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 The present writ petition, has been instituted in public interest, under Article 226 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979(38)FLR378]; (1979)ILLJ443Bom
Deshpande, J. 1. This group of cases raises an important question as to the true interpretation of the words 'twenty months' wages' in S. 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') indicating the maximum amount of gratuity payable to any employee, engaged in factories or other establishments covered by S. 1(3) of the Act. The petitioners are all employers, while the contesting respondents in all these cases are daily rated workmen. They claimed gratuity from the employer on their retirement. Section 4(1)(b) entitles every employee to gratuity on his retirement, on completion of continuous service for not less than five years. The word 'continuous service' is defined in S. 2(c) of the Act. Gratuity is payable under S. 4(2) of the Act, at the rate of 'fifteen days' wages' for every completed year of service on the basis of the last drawn wages. This rate applies to daily rated and piece rate workman and others, excepting employees of a seasonal est...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR4111
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. In this group of writ petitions mainly two reliefs are claimed. First relief that is claimed is that in view of the enactment and coming into force of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) 2005 (herein after referred to as 'Central Act' ), which is the enactment enacted by the Parliament, Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 (herein after referred to as the 'State Act' ) does not operate in relation to the private security agencies. The second main prayer is that in case it is held that the State Act continues to operate in relation to the private security agencies, then the State Government should be directed to pass orders on the proposal pending before it under Section 23 of the State Act for exemption from the provisions of the State Act immediately. 2. Writ Petition No. 1804 of 2007 has been filed by the Association of the Security agencies and also by 22 security agencies. According to averments in the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ250Mad; (2003)2MLJ521
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, aggrieved by the order of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court (Employees State Insurance Court), Chennai in ESIOP. No. 2 of 1992 dated 05.10.1999, has preferred the above appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act').2. In respect of death of one K. Sachithanandaham on 28.11.1991 at about 7.00 p.m. while he was discharging his duties and operating the crane in the 8th respondent Company, the respondents 1 to 7 herein filed a petition under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees State Insurance Court (in short 'E.S.I. Court'), seeking to determine their dependents benefit as per Rule 50 the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 (in short 'the Rules'). The said application was resisted by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, by filing a counter statement. Before the E.S.I. Court, the first applicant - S. Savithri was examined as P.W.1 and one Karunakaran as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(4)BomCR565; (1996)ILLJ101Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Constitutional validity of Section 31(2)(a) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 and Rule 31(1) of the Maharashtra Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Rules, 1968 amended vide Maharashtra Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Amendment Rules, 1977 are the principal common questions involved in this group of six writ petitions and therefore, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. To appreciate the contentions raised in these writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions, facts of writ petition No. 15 of 1989, which are in narrow compass, may be adverted to firsts. Smt. Fulwantabai w/o. Ishwardas Meshram (for short, the 'worker') in the said writ petition filed an appeal under Section 31(2) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (for short, the 'Beedi Workers Act, 1966') before the Assistan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ326Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the file of the first respondent pertaining to the proceedings in PGA No. 35/1991 and to quash the order dated April 24, 1992 in so far as it deprives the petitioner, his full gratuity and consequently direct the third respondent to pay full gratuity as ordered by the second respondent vide order dated January 8, 1987 made in PG Case No. 621/85 together with Interest at 18 per cent per annum and with costs.2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he joined the services of the third respondent company on April 20, 1944 and retired on reaching the age of superannuation on March 30, 1985; that his last drawn monthly wages was Rs. 1,158.65; that he was paid a gratuity of Rs. 23,316.30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(3)JCR231(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner, M/s Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has prayed for quashing the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1/94 whereby and whereunder the Labour Court held that termination of the services of the concerned employee was neither legal nor proper and, as such, held that the concerned employee, namely, Mr. M.K. Bandopadhaya, Medical Representative of the petitioner company is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages consequential benefits and continuity in service.2. The above reference was made to the Labour Court vide notification dated 1.12.1993 of Labour, Employment & Training Department, Government of Bihar to give an adjudication to the following dispute :Whether transfer of M.K. Bandopadhaya Medical Representative, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from Ranchi to some other places was made to harass Sri Bandopadhaya and whether to terminate him from services during pendency of industrial dispute c...
Tag this Judgment!