Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ343Mad
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. These 60 writ petitions have been filed against a common order dated 23.6.1975 made by the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai in C.P. Nos. 253 of 1974, etc., The petitioner is the management of Pudukottah Textiles Ltd., Namanasamudram, Pudukottah District. 61 claim petitions were filed before the first respondent under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act., (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), claiming payment of wages for the period 1.4.1970 to 12.11.1971, nearly seventeen months, during which period the Mill was kept closed. In the affidavit filed in support of these petitions, it is claimed by the workmen that till 1970, the mill was under the management of one L. Narayanan Chettiar, who was designated as Director, and who had taken over the management in or about 1959. Due to continued financial difficulties, the management which was in charge of its affairs in 1970, issued notice dated 28.3.70 under Ext. M10, informing its workers that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)4MLJ335
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the challenge is to the common order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 16.04.2003 in O.A. Nos. 5028 of 2002 etc., wherein the State Administrative Tribunal, while upholding the abolition of Gang Mazdoors made under G.O. Ms. No. 160 (Highways) dated 05.09.2002, directed the State Government to pay a sum equivalent to six months salary to each of the Gang Mazdoors, whether he had filed an Original Application before the Tribunal or not.2. The petitioners were represented by different counsel, however main submissions were made by Ms. R. Vaigai, Ms. Nalini Chidambaram and Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, whose arguments were adopted by the other counsel appearing for various other petitioners. Submissions were made on behalf of the respondent State by the learned Advocate General, as well as Mr. A.L. Somayaji, the learned Senior counsel. 3. In order to resolve the controversy involved in these writ petitions, the facts which lead to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)IILLJ463Mad
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15344/1994 dated February 1,2002, partly allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein ordering reinstatement with 25% back wages.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal as could be seen from the affidavit are that the first respondent herein/writ petitioner was employed as Billing Clerk-cum-Salesman under the 4th respondent in the writ petition from 1979 and he was kept in temporary post. From 1985 till February 29, 1988 he was continuously employed for more than 300 days and on February 26, 1988 he made request claiming confirmation and therefore the management terminated his services from February 29, 1988. The said termination having been without any notice and without paying compensation as required to be paid under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the writ petitioner raised Industrial Dispute and the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(2)BomCR312; (1988)90BOMLR139
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by the Employers challenging the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, II Labour Court, Kolhapur, directing them to pay Rs. 40/- to each of the employees under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Initially these matters were placed before the Single Judge of this Court---Daud, J., who by his order dated 17th of September 1986 referred the following question to the Larger Bench :'Whether employees within the meaning of section 2(f)(i) of the Beedi Act cannot take recourse to the I.D. Act for the resolution of their grievances, not falling within section 39(2) of the Beedi Act ?' This question is referred to larger bench in view of the decision of Joshi, J., in Special Civil Application No. 882 of 1973. (Ramanbhai Patel (Asali Sampal) v. Judge, Labour Court, Akola & others), decided on 28th July, 1980 wherein a view was taken that an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not maint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ843Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The crux of the contention in this batch of writ petitions is there shall be no discrimination on ground of sex, which is perhaps the most controversial of all protective measures, an ever raging controversy and the issue, has been now set in motion in the form of legal action. This Court deems it apt to quote the great jurist before taking up the writ petitions for consideration:'It is of the very nature of a free society to advance in its standards of what is deemed reasonable and right. Representing as it does a living principle, due process is not confined within a permanent catalogue of what may at a given time be deemed the limits or the essentials of fundamental rights.' JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, in Wolf v. Colorado [338 U.S. 25, 27(1949)].2. In the present batch of writ petitions the plea that has been advanced is essentially a claim of equality for women with passion and the equality means equality of opportunity for both men and women. It is the plea of the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 80818082 OF2011THE DIRECTOR STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ..Appellant(s) VERSUS ISPAT KHADAN JANTA MAZDOOR UNION ..Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8084 OF2011JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. These appeals arise from the judgment dated 6th September, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.10963 of 2009 and 12485 of 2009 setting aside the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal(CGIT), Jabalpur dated 16th September, 2009 answering the reference in the affirmative form and directing the 1 contract labourers who were in the employment of SAIL from 1993 till 1996(17th March, 1993 to April 1996) to be reinstated, and their cases be considered for regularisation in accordance with Para 125 of the Judgment of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others 1 declining to grant them bac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
O R D E R1. W.P.24409 of 2010 was filed by the TASMAC Transport Contractor represented by its President. The other four writ petitions were filed by individual transport contractors engaged by the respondent TASMAC. The challenge in all the five writ petitions are to the circular issued by the respondent TASMAC dated 23.06.2010.2. By the impugned circular, the Chief General Manager (Finance) informed the Transport contractors, who engages the workers for loading and unloading of IMFS/Beer products and when they pay the unloading charges all statutory payments arising out of unloading charges have also to be borne by them. It was also informed that as per transport tender condition and contract executed by transport contractors the rate is inclusive of all statutory levies such as service tax, EPF etc and the primary responsibility of the transport contractor is to take care of all statutory requirements in respect of loadmen such as covering the loadmen under the Employees Provident Fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1998AP154
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. A Tender notice was issued on 26-9-1997. Tenders were called for supply of labour in the Telecom office, Exchanges etc., for the purpose of cleaning, sweeping, house-keeping and security etc. The tenders which have received and the rates quoted by them are given below :--1)M/s. Kamaraj Constructions, Vijayawada--Rs. 41/-2)Sri N. Bala Raju, Vijayawada--Rs. 47/-3)Sri P, Vasu, Benz circle, Vijayawada--Rs. 52/-4)M/s. G. Seetaiah & Company, Khammam--Rs. 56/-5)Sri G. Lakshmi Prasad, Vijayawada--Rs. 61.29 ps.6)Sri P. Ram Mohana Rao, Gollapudi Vijayawada--Rs. 64/-7)M/s. Rajeswara Rao & Party, Vijayawada--Rs. 69.75 ps.The petitioner quoted Rs. 52/- as wages per a labour which was third lowest amongst the contenders. The petitioner submits that M/s. Kamaraj Constructions and Sri N. Bala Raju had quoted the wages of Rs. 41/- and 47/- respectively which were lesser than the minimum wages fixed by the Government of India. They could not be allowed to pay to the labour engaged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)IILLJ330Ker
Padmanabhan, J. Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act (for brevity, the Act) came into force on December 29, 1988, providing for seven paid holidays, comprised of three national and four festival holidays. National holidays are Republic Day (26th of January), May Day (1st of May), and Independence Day (15th of August). Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Amendment Act, 1990 (for short, Amendment Act) increased the national holidays from three to four with the addition of Gandhi Jayanthi, birth day of the Father of the Nation, falling on 2nd of October, Festival holidays were increased from four to nine. Constitutional validity of the Amendment Act is under challenge in these original petitions. At the time of arguments, all concerned made it clear that Gandhi Jayanthi may continue as a national holiday. Challenge was, therefore, confined to the addition of five festival holidays.2. The Act is applicable to industrial establi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1966)ILLJ687Mad
Venkatadri, J.1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The Insurance Inspector called upon the appellant to contribute Rs. 377 and 213.70 towards the employees' contribution. The appellant opposed the applications on the ground that he was not running any factory and even assuming that it was a factory there were only nineteen persons working. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the concern of the appellant is a factory within the meaning of the Employees' State Insurance Act.2. The appellant is manufacturing and selling umbrellas at No. 2, Narayana Mudali Lane, Madras-1. Admittedly, there are eighteen workmen engaged in manufacturing umbrellas. There is one acoountant and two sales clerks working in the premises. At the time of the inspection by the Insurance Inspector, he found 25 persons working in the premises of the faotory. If, according to the contention of the appellant, the accountant and the sales ol...
Tag this Judgment!