Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ120All
ORDERSabhajeet Yadav, J.1. Heard Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Singh for respondent No. 2.By this petition, the petitioners have sought relief of writ of certiorari for quashing the proceeding of P.W.A. Case No. 18/2005 Ajit Singh v. Merind Ltd. and Anr. pending before the Prescribed Authority (under Payment of Wages Act)/ Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Another relief for writ of prohibition restraining the respondent No. 1 from entertaining or adjudicating upon the proceedings in P.W.A. Case No. 18/2005 has also been sought for. This petition was allowed in open Court on December 2, 2008 with indication that reasons will be given later on, therefore, the same are given hereinafter.2. The brief facts leading to the case are that respondent No. 2 made an application on April 6, 2004 under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 hereinafter referred to as 'the 1936 Act' before respondent No. I/Prescribed Authority under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals Are Filed U/S 4 Of The Karnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The Order Passed In The Writ Petition 47552- 553/12 Dated 2/7/13.) Cav Judgment 1. These writ appeals arise out of the order dated 02/07/2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.47552-47553/2012. Factual Background: 2. Appellant herein had filed two sets of writ petitions namely, W.P.Mos.47552-47553/2012 and W.P.Nos.268- 270/2013 in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.18 and 19 (BBMP New No.234/19/3D) Kumudanapalya, Konankunte Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, admeasuring about ll,507sq.mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as "scheduled land" for the sake of convenience). By a common order, those writ petitions were disposed of. 3. In W.P.Nos.47552-553/2012 approval granted by the third respondent-State Level Single Window Clearance Committee ('SLSWCC for short) vide communication dated 12/09/2012 (Annexure "M") and consequently, communication dated 17/09/2012 (Annexure "N")...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 30.01.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 10.02.2012 + W.P.(C) 58/2011 NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS ... Petitioner versus MS. RAJNI BAJAJ and ANR. ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr J.L. Gupta and Mr Mukul Gupta with Dr Rakesh Gosain, Mr Sanjiv Joshi and Mr Achit Sharma For Respondent No.1 : Mr M.K. Bhardwaj For Respondent No.2 : Mr Sachin Datta for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J..1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in M.A. No.2023/2010 in T.A.No.1441/2009..2. The respondent No.1 before this Court, Ms Rajni Bajaj was appointed as a Data Entry Operator with the petitioner National Board of Examinations, vide letter dated 04.07.2002 and was put on probation for a period of two ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE7H DAY OF OCTOBER201315TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 23442 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------- REMYA KRISHNAN R. AGED18YEARS D/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, REJU BHAVANAM, KOVOOR ARINALLOOR (PO), KOLLAM - 690 538. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS : ----------- 1. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR GENERAL PANCHDEEP BHAWAN COMRADE INDERJEET GUPTA (CIG) MARGNEW DELHI-110 002.2. THE DEPUTY MEDICAL COMMISSIONER (ME) EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,PANCHDEEP BHAWAN COMRADE INDERJEET GUPTA (CIG) MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.3. THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND THRISSUR - 680 020.4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE KADAPPAKKADA KOLLAM - 680 020. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALL...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4507/2017 % Date of Decision:15. h December, 2017 ASHMEEN Through: Mr. Deepak Kuamar Singh, ........ Petitioner versus Adv. DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for R-1/GNCTD. Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI/R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 This writ petition relates to the implementation of the benefits under the National Food Security Act, 2013 in the slum cluster of Holambi Kalan area of Delhi.2. It is contended that the pregnant and lactating women have been facing challenge in getting the cash assistance benefit under Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana (IGMSY). This writ petition seeks directions to the respondents to ensure implementation of the grievance redressal mechanism under the statutory enactment. W.P.(C) No.4507/2017 Page 1 of 3 3. The respondent No.2-Unio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR723; 2002(4)BomCR497; (2002)4BOMLR382; 2002(4)MhLj758
A.P. Shah, J.1. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seek to challenge the Notification dated 15-9-2001 issued by the State of Maharashtra amending the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, framed under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the Security Guards Act. 2. The petitioners are trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and have as their members security guards employed in various establishments in Mumbai and Thane. The principal challenge to the impugned notification is on the ground that the notification is ultra vires the provisions of the Security Guards Act. In order to understand the challenge in the petitions, it is necessary to briefly refer to the objects and the various provisions of the Security Guards Act and the Scheme framed under Section 4(1) of the said Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000ACJ753; ILR1999KAR1548; 1999(6)KarLJ382
1. This is the claimant's appeal being aggrieved of the dismissal of the claim in MVC No. 1369 of 1987 on the file of the Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The injured H.G. Mahesh, while he was proceeding on his Luna bearing Regn. No. CKD 566 at about 7.00 p.m. on 22-6-1987 towards his house and reached near N.T.T.F. Bus stop on Peenya Road that a Tempo bearing Regn. No. CAA 695 came driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed, as a result, he sustained with fracture injuries. Due to the injuries suffered in the road accident, he presented a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.3. Respondent 1, the owner of the Tempo filed objections stating that the vehicle has been insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, and the policy is valid as on the date of the accident and denied all other averments which are inconsistent with the objections statement and pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ1721; AIR2008SC1726; 2008(2)CTC681; [2008(117)FLR562]; [2008(3)JCR72(SC)]; JT2008(4)SC547; 2008(2)KLT6239(SC); (2008)IILLJ997SC; (2008)4MLJ477(SC); (2008)152PLR390; 2008AIRSCW2373; AIR2008SC1726; 2008(7)SCC450; 2008LABIC2591; 2008ACJ1721; 2008-II-LLJ-997; 2008(4)KCCRSN314.
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. This appeal arises out of the following facts:The appellant who was a covered employee under the ESI scheme met with an accident in the course of his employment on 15th June 1990. An accident report was sent by the employer respondent No. 2 in the present appeal to the respondent Corporation. The Corporation however refused to treat the injuries sustained, as injuries suffered during employment on the plea that on the date of the accident the employee was not covered under the ESI scheme. It was also communicated to the employee by a communication dated 4th December 1990 that he had ceased to be an employee with effect from 1st October 1989 and therefore he would not be entitled to any benefit for the disability but would be eligible for sickness benefits for the period 16th June 1990 to 30th June 1990. The employee thereupon filed an application before the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha claiming the benefit of disability on account of the injuries that he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(14)SC479; 2009(3)SCALE139:2009AIRSCW2753:2009(3)SCC269:2009(2)SCC(Cri)1055.
ORDER1. The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short 'The Act'), was passed by the Parliament and in this writ petition it is alleged that many of the provisions of the enactment are not put in practice and the respective authorities have not complied with the statutory provisions. All the State Governments and Union territories are impleaded as parties in this writ petition. The Act is intended to benefit the unorganized workers in the construction sector. Under Section 6 of the Act, the appropriate Government has to appoint registering officers and under Section 7 of the Act every employer shall register their establishment. The building workers are given various benefits and in order to enable the workers to avail the benefits, each State has to constitute a State Welfare Board. The Board shall consist of a Chairman nominated by the Central Government, and such other Members, not exceeding 15, as may be appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(3)KLT306; (2006)IIILLJ365Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Clause 29A introduced with effect from 18.11.2002 of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is questioned in this case as unconstitutional and ultra vires of the provisions of the Act. Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (Act No. 20 of 1980) is a unique legislation to regulate the employment of headload workers in the State and to make provision for their welfare, settlement of disputes in respect of their employment or non-employment and other connected matters. There is no such legislation in any other States in India. There were many disputes in the State of Kerala regarding engagement/employment of headload workers. Because of the powerful unions organised by the headload workers, the workers used to charge exorbitant rates for each headload they carry. There were inter-union rivalries also. Since headl...
Tag this Judgment!