Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom146; (1965)67BOMLR1; [1965(10)FLR104]; ILR1965Bom239
Tambe, J.(1) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by 29 workmen who were in the employment of the third respondent the News Asiatic Company Limited. They seek to get quashed the order of the Second Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Bombay, of date 27th April 1962.(2) The question that arises is whether the gratuity payable under the settlement arrived at during the course of the conciliation proceedings is 'wages' within the meaning of that word in the payment of wages Act, 1936. These 29 workmen have been retrenched from service by the third respondent, the first 27 on 1st July 1960, and 28 and 29 on 1st November 1960. These 29 workmen, after they had been retrenched filed applications under the Payment of Wages Act, for recovery of certain sums falling under three categories wages for overtime work and for leave period, bonus and the amounts of gratuity claimed by them under the settlement reached during the course of concili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1967)69BOMLR140; 1966MhLJ1149
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the validity of the notification dated October 7, 1965, issued by the State Government of Maharashtra that in relation to respondent No. 2, which is a relief undertaking, an agreement dated November 7, 1964, between respondent No. 2 and the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur, relating to the payment of dearness allowance should be suspended. They also challenged the notice issued by the Factory Manager of respondent No. 2 on October 9, 1965, as ultra vires and unauthorized exercise of powers by respondent No. 2. We may mention that the petitioners challenged the provisions of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, but that challenge' has not been pressed and no arguments were addressed before us with respect to that relief.2. In order to understand the grievance of the petitioners certain facts are necessary to be stated.3. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union, it h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1967)69BOMLR326; 1967MhLJ694
Tarkunde, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition was taken be-for me by Mr. Chagla on behalf of respondents Nos. 6 to 8. Respondent No. 8 is the Fourth Baronet; respondent No. 6 is his minor son; and respondent No. 7 is his mother, being the second wife of the Third Baronet. Mr. Chagla urged that this petition is not maintainable because the Repealing Act, under which the petition is filed, is itself ultra vires the Bombay State Legislature. The Act is ultra vires, according to Mr. Chagla, because it violates Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution and also because it was beyond the legislative competence of the Bombay State Legislature to pass such an Act. Mr. Chagla expressly told me that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 do not challenge the Act on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, the reason being that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 are not citizens of India. I may add that, if respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1980(41)FLR213]; (1980)IILLJ344Bom
Mohta, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company carrying on business of manufacturing conductors, heavy duty underground power and control cables, welding electrodes, etc. The second respondent was working as an employee in the carpentry department of the petitioner's factory at Vithalawadi in District Thane. The third respondent is a registered Trade Union representing the employees in the petitioner's factory. Industrial Court passed an order holding petitioner guilty of an unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule 4 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (in short Maharashtra Act 1, 1972) and directing it to implement a settlement dated 3-8-1974 with effect from 15th October, 1975 till the date of closure of the company, which we are informed in the end of October, 1977. By the present petition this order is impugned.2. Before proceeding with the points raised it would be necessary to set out certain relevant backgro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1971Bom237; (1971)73BOMLR42; ILR1971Bom457; 1970MhLJ419
Nain, J.1. This is a revision application against an order dated 2nd December, 1969, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. By this order he has decided a preliminary issue, being issue No. 8 in the suit, as to whether the document which the parties described as a deed of dissolution of partnership, or, in so far as it pertained to payment or certain amounts of money by the continuing partner to the outgoing partners, it was also a bond within the meaning of Section 2 and Article 13 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.2. The two plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a partnership under a deed of partnership dated 11th June, 1960 and carried on partnership business in Nagpur and Bhopal in the name and style 'Messrs. Oriental Engineering Company'. They decided to dissolve this partnership with effect from 1st April, 1966, settle the accounts of the partnership, and provide for the defendant continuing the partnership business, payment of amounts found due...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR786
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is the year 1939-40 in respect of the accounting year, which in this case is the year ending May 31, 1938.2. The asseasee is a trustee, and the amount in dispute is the sum of Rs. 1,263, which is the income for the accounting year of a trust fund created by a settlement dated February 10, 1924.The questions referred to us are as follows:(1) Whether the income of the trust fund called Shri Kailaje Umamaheshwar Vidya Nidhi is income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act? (2) Whether the income of the trust is taxable at the maximum rate under the first proviso to Section 41(1) of the Act?3. The answer to the first question must depend solely on whether the trusts or the settlement are wholly for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ578Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an interlocutory order of the Industrial Court, Thane, dated 23rd September, 1994 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 166 of 1993 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner is a registered Trade Union which represents some of the workmen working in the industrial establishment of the First Respondent at Wagle Estate, Thane. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 166 of 1993 before the Industrial Court at Thane alleging, inter alia, therein that the workmen of the First Respondent had not been paid their wages from February 1992, though their services had not been terminated by following any procedure in law. It was also pointed that, right from February 1992, neither was any manufacturing activity going on in the industrial establishment of the First Respondent, nor was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom565; (1927)29BOMLR1254
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The question submitted to this Full Bench runs :-Where in a suit parties have referred their differences to arbitration without an order of the Court and an award is made, can a decree in terms of the award he passed by the Court under Order XXIII, Rule 3, or otherwise?2. The referring judgment further states that it is to be understood in answering this question that no point arises here to the effect that subsequently to the award, the parties agreed to treat the award as an agreement or compromise of their claims. Nothing of that sort happened. That being so, we have to consider the question under two headings, viz., (a) a decree passed under Order XXIII, Rule 3, and (6) a decree passed 'otherwise'.3. Turning first to Order XXIII, Rule 3, that runs as follows :-Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been, adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1925Bom44; (1924)26BOMLR754; 83Ind.Cas.370
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the hereditary Knot of Maluka in the Taluka of Mangaon in the District of Kolaba. From the year 1865 until 1914 the Khot of this village signed in each year a Kabulayat in favour of Government in a particular form. In 1915 the Government presented a new form of Kabulayat for the Khot's signature, and on his refusing to sign, the village was attached thus necessitating the filing of this suit in which the plaintiff prayed as follows:--A (1) The plaintiff in the capacity as a Khot has a permanent right of holding the village, of making recoveries in accordance with the Mamul practice and of management. It is neither necessary nor lawful to compel him to pass a Kabulayat of any description whatever.(2) The condition objected to in the statement hereto annexed cannot be asked for in writing in the Kabulayat.(3) The attachment of the Khoti village effected because the plaintiff did not pass a Kabulayat in writing as asked for by the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)BomCR426; [1999(81)FLR900]
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel Mr. Bharucha for the petitioner and Mr. Vashi for respondents No. 9,11,17,21 and 22.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by the employer Air India Limited challenging the two orders viz. (i) Order dated 30th November 1994 passed by the Controlling Authority-respondent No. 2, and (ii) the Order dated 30th June, 1995, passed by the Appellate Authority respondent No. 1 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'Gratuity Act'). There were separate orders passed by respondent No. 2 Controlling Authority though the issues involved were identical. Under the said orders, the respondents No. 3 to 26 employees were held eligible to recover the amount of their gratuity payable in accordance with the provisions of the Gratuity Act, together with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum on the said amount payable from different dates till the date of payment. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding...
Tag this Judgment!