Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1 The exercise of power by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under section 10-A of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is questioned by the Petitioner by this petition. 2 The Petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of construction. Sometime around the year 2012, Petitioner constructed premises of one Bhartiya Sanskriti Darshan Trust at Kesnand, district Pune. The Petitioner had engaged services of M/s Avinash Construction Company and M/s RMC Readymix (India). On 18 December 2012, an unfortunate incident took place at the construction site. The Centring on the 4th floor collapsed and thirteen persons died. One of them was Shri Prakash Apparao Shelke. 3 The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation exercising powers under section 10-A of the Act issued a notice to the Petitioner. The notice called upon the Petitioner to give particulars of the incident and to make necessary deposit under Section 10-A(2) of the Act, within 30 days. The Petitioner appeared ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
1. By an order dated 8th February 2010 passed by this Court, this Court framed the following preliminary issue : "Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the originating summons which has been taken out by the plaintiff in view of the suit being filed in the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the said Act after the originating summons was filed?" 2. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court on the preliminary issue framed by this Court. None of the parties have led oral evidence on the preliminary issue. Since the issue of jurisdiction is raised by the defendant, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant addressed this Court first followed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this preliminary issue are as under:- 3. Defendant is a lessor of a large piece of land admeasuring 48057 sq. yards described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. By an Indenture of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-03-2014
1. This is joint petition filed by the Employees' Union and one of its members/ employees challenging the Office Memorandum dtd. 26.06.2009 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Defence by which the House Rent Allowance/Transport Allowance/Small Family Allowance was excluded for the purpose of computing Overtime Allowance admissible to the employees under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. 2. The only grievance put forth on behalf of the employees is exclusion of the HRA/Transport Allowance/Small Family Allowance for the purpose of computing Overtime Allowance, which the employees were getting previously by virtue of the provisions of sub-Section 1 and 2 of Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, which specifically provides that where a worker who works for more than nine hours in any day or for more than 48 hours in a week, he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages. Sub-section (2) explains the term ordinary r...
Tag this Judgment!