Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(2)JCR122(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner, All India Conference (Golmuri Constituent Branch), Mahila Sharan, Teclo Colony while challenged the order dated 11th June, 1991 passed in reference Case Nos. 5/86 to 8/86, have also challenged the award dated 28th June, 1993 passed in Reference Case Nos. 5/86 to 8/86/27/88 to 30/88.2. By order dated 11th June, 1991, the learned Presiding Officer decided the preliminary issue against the petitioner and held it an 'Industry', as defined under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act for short). 'By the impugned award dated 28th June, 1993, while the dismissal orders of respondents 3 to 7 have been set aside by the learned Presiding Officer and minor punishment of stoppage of three increments have been imposed, they havebeen reinstated with full back wages and other benefits. 3. The petitioner which claim to be a Philanthropic Organisation mainly raised two questions for determination, namely, (a) whether the Philanthropic Institutio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR647(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen J. 1. In this, Writ Application, the petitioner, namely, the Management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. have filed the instant Writ Application challenging the award dated 01.05.1997 (Annexure-14) passed by the respondent No. 2 in Reference Case No. 51 of 1993, whereby and whereunder it has inter alia been held that the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of Naresh Jha and 27 others with effect from 01.07.1992 is not justified and that the concerned workmen are entitled to be reinstated and regularized from that day together with 40% of back wages and other benefits within two months from the date of publication of the award.2. The facts, as pleaded, are that the establishment of the petitioner is neither a 'mine' nor does it own any 'mine' nor does it carry on any mining activities and therefore, the Central Government being not the appropriate Government could not have made the reference. The further case of the petitioner is that its rol...
Tag this Judgment!