Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1971)12GLR603
B.J. Divan, J.1. The second appeal raises an interesting question regarding the imposition of Vehicle Tax by the Porbandar City Municipality, respondent in the second appeal, and the main contention is that the tax was not imposed in accordance with the procedure laid down by the relevant section of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, as adapted and applied to State of Saurashtra. In the Special Civil Application, the same tax is challenged and besides this ground which has been canvassed in the Second Appeal, the petitioner has raised several other contentions. But when the matter reached for hearing before us, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, stated that apart from the ground regarding non-compliance with the procedure laid down in the relevant section of the Act, he was not relying upon any other challenge to the Vehicle Tax imposed by the respondent Municipality and, therefore, it will be convenient to dispose of both the second Appeal and the Special Civil Appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR334]; 2006(12)SCALE142; 2007AIRSCW1211; 2007ILLJ81(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted. Heard both sides.2. The appellant in these appeals are M/s. Wheels India Ltd. and the respondents, namely, Shanker Lal and Om Prakash are employees of the appellant. Notice was ordered in these matters on 16.8.2005. During the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, both the respondents-workmen in these appeals have amicably settled the disputes with the Management. The settlement and the receipts issued by the respective workmen were placed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, District Panchayat Premises, Court Road, Moradabad. The various issues and the terms arrived at the settlement are as under:Statement of the Dispute Due to the failure of Conciliation between M/s Whels India Ltd. Tada Badali, Rampur and Workman Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Ghasiram, before the Conciliation Officer regarding the dispute of termination of the services vide letter dated on 22.2.2001, the dispute was referred to Labour Court, Rampur for its adjudication. The C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)1GLR729; (2004)IILLJ970Guj
J.M. Panchal, J. 1. By instituting Special Civil Application No. 10225 of 1996 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, Steel Authority of India Limited ['SAIL' for short] has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari to quash award and order dated November 8, 1996 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Reference (IT) No. 190 of 1993, by which SAIL is directed to treat 160 workmen working in the stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad as its permanent employees, and pay them salary, dearness allowance and other benefits as per the Rules and Regulations of the Company from the date of making of the reference i.e. from July 31, 1993.Special Civil Application No. 2643 of 1997 is filed by Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, wherein prayer made is to declare that the workmen employed in the stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad are entitled to salary, dearness allowance and other benefits as per Rules and Regulations of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 139(2007)DLT578
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in these writ petitions, and the connected appeals against interim orders, is to the constitutional validity of:(a) The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 ('BOCW Act'). (b) The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 ('Cess Act'). (c) The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Central Rules, 1998 ('Central Rules').(d) The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 ('Cess Rules').(e) The Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 ('Delhi Rules').2. The challenge to the statutes is by contractors who have entered into construction contracts. They are either in the process of executing the contract or have completed it. The contracts are with various government departments agencies or public sector undertakings (PSUs) for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)2GLR1
M.P. Thakkar, C.J.1. Sympathy for one should not result in cruelty to others. Not at any rate (1) when the question of interpretation of a legal doctrine arises in a labour dispute and (2) when in order to immunize the industrial employer from the economic injury (which is an occupational hazard for him and which he can normally absorb without tears or sobs or being economically crippled) arising from delays in Courts and Tribunals, economic injury has to be inflicted on the workers (who are bound to be economically crippled thereby). This proposition can scarcely be disputed as late as today when Twentieth Century is just about to close its jaws. It cannot be disputed at least in India where socialistic goals are proclaimed with rightful pride in the Preamble and woven in the texture of the Constitution without feeling shy or coy about the same. The very credibility of that proposition is at stake In the present matter as will become evident very soon.2. A question of considerable imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
:1. : R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE10H DAY OF JULY, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.21216 OF2014CONNECTED WITH WP No.108991/2014, WP No.108986/2014 WP Nos.109282/2014 & 109294-310/2014 WP Nos.111162/2014 & 100853858/2015 WP Nos.111163/2014 & 100846852/2015 WP No.108979/2014, WP No.109265/2014 WP No.108992/2014, WP No.108984/2014 WP No.108976/2014, WP No.108978/2014 WP No.108989/2014, WP No.109264/2014 WP No.109261/2014, WP No.108988/2014 WP No.109273/2014, WP No.108983/2014 WP Nos.100077-100079/2015, WP No.108980/2014 WP No.109274/2014, WP No.109275/2014 WP No.109280/2014, WP Nos.101104/2015 & 101105-125/2015 WP No.100958/2015, WP No.108974/2014 WP No.113061/2014, WP Nos.109283/2014 & 109311-319/2014 WP Nos.110012/2014 & 100916-925/2015 & 100926/2015 WP No.108981/2014, WP No.110011/2014 & 100905-915/2015 WP Nos.109517109547/2014 & 109548/2014 WP Nos.109549-109556/2014 & 109557/2014 WP No.101240/2015, WP Nos.101084101103/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2004)2UPLBEC77
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to initiate the prosecution against the officers of the B.H.E.L., Ranipur, Haridwar in pursuance of Section 14-A of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, on the basis of application dated 5.9.2003.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner and other employees are working in the B.H.E.L., Ranipur, Haridwar. They have raised labour dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun being Industrial Case Nos. 31 of 1990 to 44 of 1990. The Labour Court has passed an award on 5.7.1996 in favour of the employees against the employer M/s. B.H.E.L. and was notified on 19.12.1996. The employer filed a Writ Petition No. 41787 of 1998, Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd; Ranipur v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Ors., before the Allahabad High Court which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ380Mad
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the management of Sridharan Motor Service, Attur, in Salem district, for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 24 December 1957, and made in Petition No. 5 of 1957 in I.D. No. 10 of 1957.2. The relevant facts are these. On 15 February 1957 the management of Sridharan Motor Service and the workers in that service submitted a Joint petition to the Government of Madras asking that various matters mentioned in the petition be referred to adjudication. On 20 May 1957 the Government passed an order referring those questions for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. On 31 May 1957, the management revised their time-tables in such a manner that it prejudicially affected the workers in various ways. The position that resulted is thus summarized in the order of the industrial tribunal:It will be seen from the list that in the case of some of the workers, while the working hours per da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. In the instant application under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Cr. P. C., the proceedings in Special Case No. 4/1999 including order dated 27.04.2004 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, now pending before the learned Special Judge, 3rd Court, Kolkata has been sought to be quashed. 2. The petitioner contends that he joined as Junior Land Officer in the West Bengal Government Service in 1973 and thereafter joined the Calcutta Dock Labour Board as an Accounts Officer in September, 1990. In January, 1993 he was promoted to the rank of Executive Officer (DC & SW) and in 1970 was given an ad hoc appointment as Deputy Chairman of said Dock Labour Board by the Central Government. But before assumption of charge he became a scapegoat of vested interest and was falsely implicated in a criminal case registered with the CBI being RC 14(A) 1997 dated 25.02.1997 which resulted in submitting a charge sheet for his prosecution for acquiring a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters - 436 U.S. 180 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters No. 76-750 Argued November 7, 1977 Decided May 15, 1978 436 U.S. 180 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Upon determining that certain carpentry work in petitioner's department store was being done by men who had not been dispatched from its hiring hall, respondent Union established picket lines on petitioner's property. When the Union refused petitioner's demand to remove the pickets, petitioner filed suit in the California Superior Court and obtained a preliminary injunction against the continuing trespass, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that, because the picketing was both arguably protected by 7 of the National Labor Relations Act and arguably prohibited by 8, state jurisdiction was preempted under t...
Tag this Judgment!