Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2689; 1992(3)KarLJ610; (1993)ILLJ833Kant
1. The workmen of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, represented by their Association, are calling in question the constitutional validity of Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, as amended by Act, 29 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also the notification issued pursuant to the said provision framing a rule by which employees whose wages exceed a limit fell outside the definition of Section 2(9) of the Act.2. Several other writ petitions are also filed on behalf of the workmen by various trade unions seeking for similar relief. Some of the managements, who have been impleaded as respondents, supported the petitioners, while others supported the other respondents. The managements in this and other connected matters are public sector undertakings, both of the State and the Union. All these matters have been heard together and contentions in all the cases are considered in this petition for purposes of convenience.3. The Act provides for certain benef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ718Kant
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. Both the writ petitions are connected in as much as both are against the common order dated February 21, 1994, and the letter dated April 25, 1996, bearing No. ALCD/PGA /CR-6/92-93 and the order, dated November 30, 1995, bearing No. FGA-G/Gratuity/ Appeal/CR- 4/94-95, Annexures C, E and D respectively.2. In Writ Petition No. 14248 of 1996 one Sri Ganeshwar Textile Mills Ltd., is the petitioner in the third respondent Siddeswara Textile Mills (Private) Ltd., is the petitioner in the other writ petition, i.e., WP.No. 14420 of 1996. The employee of the said companies one Y.M. Basavaraj is the 4th respondent in both the writ petitions and the first and second respondents are again common as appellate authority and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.3. The common facts that have led up to the above two writ petitions are that the petitioners are two textiles companies established under the Companies Act. It is claimed that they are separate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ26; (2003)IIILLJ861Kant
1. A learned Single Judge of this Court by a common order impugned in these writ appeals has allowed writ petitions filed by management of Beedi Manufacturing Industries and quashed notification dated 24-10-1996 issued by the Government of Karnataka under Sections 3 and 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act') revising the rates of minimum wage in the Beedi Manufacturing Industries. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State of Karnataka and the concerned Trade Unions representing the workforce in the Beedi Manufacturing Industries have filed these writ appeals.2. Beedi industries is spread throughout the State of Karnataka and the employees in the said industry number more than 8 lakhs. Employment in Beedi Manufacturing Industries is a scheduled employment as per the provisions of the Act. Under Section 3 of the Act, the appropriate Government is empowered to fix and revise minimum wages in the scheduled employment. This is an obligation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR121]; ILR2008KAR1819; 2008(1)KarLJ695; (2008)ILLJ943Kant; ILR2008(2)Kar1819; 2008(1)KLJ695; 2008(1)KCCR241; 2008(1)AIRKarR441; 2008-I-LLJ943; 2008LabIC(NOC)339(Kar)(DB)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. As the dispute between the parties lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, the appeal is heard for final disposal.2. Brief facts of the case necessary for consideration and disposal of this appeal are:(i) The appellant is a Company engaged in paints and varnishes Industry. The 2nd respondent was employed as sales representative by the appellant on 1.7.1985. He has resigned from service of the appellant with effect from 1.4.1996. Thereafter he was paid an amount of Rs. 2,128.50 as gratuity, as per the scheme of the appellant 2nd respondent being dissatisfied with the said payment, had filed an application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') in Form N, before the Controlling Authority to determine the amount of gratuity payable to him. In the annexure to the said application, the appellant has stated that the post held by him was 'sales representative' and he had put ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2938:2009(6)AIRKarR227
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the notification No. KAAE-11 LMW 2004 dated 25.3.2008 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 24.4.2008 produced at Annexure-K.2. Petitioner No. 1 is an Association of Planters established in the year 1958. Petitioners-2 and 3 are the members of the first petitioner. There are about 4,67,000 labourer employed in Coffee estates in Karnataka and their wages are fixed under the provisions of Section 5 Sub-section (1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). State Government by notification dated 19.2.2004 had published a draft notification calling for objections, wherein the State Government had indicated the minimum wages for the workers working in Cincona, Rubber, Tea, coffee and mixed plantations at Rs. 70.10 paise. In response to the same, the first petitioner No. 1 -Association had filed a statement of objections as per Annexure-B. In this regard, the State Government had constituted an Advisor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS, J.1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to strike down the notification dated 17.8.2010 Annexure L amending the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, Employees [Probation] Regulations and Employees [Seniority] Regulations in so far as it relates to the recruitment and minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Lineman; to quash the notification dated 12.12.2011, Annexure-M inviting applications for the post of Assistant Lineman and for a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to apply for the post of Assistant Lineman.2. The erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board was entrusted with the job of the electrical power transmission and distribution. Subsequently, this Karnataka Electricity Board was renamed as 'Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited1 i.e., the respondent herein. The respondent established an Industrial Training Centre to impart training for b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO STRIKING DOWN THE RESPONDENT’S AMENDMENT VIDE ORDER NO.KPTCL/B16/7962/2009-10 DATED 17.08.2010 ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.)1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to strike down the notification dated 17.8.2010 Annexure-L amending the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, Employees [Probation] Regulations and Employees [Seniority] Regulations in so far as it relates to the recruitment and minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Lineman; to quash the notification dated 12.12.2011, Annexure-M inviting applications for the post of Assistant Lineman and for a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to apply for the post of Assistant Lineman.2. The erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board was entrusted with the job of the electrical power transmission and distribution. Subsequently, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 26.5.2006 MADE IN REFERENCE NO.38/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-Q) AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS ERRORS, WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND ETC.,)1. Petitioner is calling in question the award dated 26.05.2006 made in reference No.38/99 by second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, (Annexure-Q) and seeks for declaration that petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits.2. Heard Sri. Narayan Bhat learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the impugned order as also the Annexures appended to the petition.3. Petitioner was appointed in the respondent company as a counter salesman in the year 1995 and was asked to undergo training and said period of training was extended from t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal Filed Under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.11362 of 2007 dated 02-08-2007.) 1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to teachers in an educational institution. 2. The petitioner was appointed by the third respondent-educational institution in one of the colleges run by it as a full time Lecturer on 09.11.1997. Thereafter, he served the institution in the capacity of Lecturer for 7 years and 20 days. On 30.11.2004 he resigned from service. On 10.08.2005 he made a claim against the third respondent for payment of gratuity in a sum of Rs.1,11,784-00 with interest before the first respondent. By order dated 21.03.2006 as per Annexure-F the claim of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of an employee as defined under Section 2(e) of the Payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA DATED THIS THE25H DAY OF AUGUST2015MFA NO.9805 OF2007c.w. MFA Nos.9641, 9804 and 9806 of 2007(WC) MFA9805OF2007: BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS, DEPUTY MANAGER, B.A. KRISHNA MURTHY, BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL, ADVOCATE.) ..APPELLANT2AND:1. 2. SURESHA S/O PAPAIAH, MAJOR, MASKI VILLAGE, LINGASUGUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT. ASHOK JAIN JAIN, S.C., MAJOR, C/O NEW MAHARASTRA- TRANSPORT OFFICE, OPPOSITE TO GRAMEENA POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA. (BY SRI. PRAKASH YELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED) RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 30 (1) OF WC ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED1503.2007 PASSED IN W.C.NO.120/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, RAICHUR, AWARDING A COMEPNSATION OF RS.1,66,440/- W...
Tag this Judgment!