Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)ILLJ849SC; (1999)2SCC687a
S.B. Majumdar, J.1. Leave granted in these special leave petitions feeing S.L.P. (C) Nos. 19982-19983 of 1997 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22370-2237l of 1997. By consent of learned Counsel of the contesting parties, the appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has filed the first two appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos. 19982 and 19983 of 1997 being aggrieved by the common judgment and order rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal Nos. 8635 and 8491 of 1996 while the other two appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos. 22370 and 22371 of 1997 are filed by the State of Karnataka, also aggrieved by the afore said common judgment and order in the very same two writ appeals. The appellants have the common cause of complaint against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, while the respondent-KSRTC Staff and Workers' Federation, which is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2528; [2009(121)FLR979]; JT2009(8)SC606; (2009)IIILLJ591SC; 2009(8)SCALE182; (2009)7SCC552; 2009AIRSCW5905
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Extent of interference with the quantum of punishment imposed by an employer on a delinquent employee by the Labour Court in exercise of its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 16.11.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix:Respondent herein was appointed as a conductor by the appellant - corporation on or about 6.8.1982 as a daily wager for a specific period on the expiry whereof his services came to an end. He was, however, appointed as a conductor on probation for a period of two years by an offer dated 26.3.1983, inter alia, on the terms and conditions laid down therein; the relevant claim whereof reads as under:4. That on being caught by the inspection team and on finding corruption their services could be terminated at any t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1654; JT2009(2)SC36; (2009)IILLJ489SC; 2009(1)SCALE577; (2009)2SCC668; 2009(3)SLJ316(SC); 2009(2)LC621(SC):2009AIRSCW1176:2009(2)LHSC1346
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is before us questioning the judgment and order dated 21.9.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 658 of 2007 and others whereby and whereunder the said writ appeal preferred from a judgment and order dated 29.10.2002 passed in W.P. No. 21410 of 2002 filed by appellant and others was allowed.3. Respondent - Corporation is constituted and incorporated under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (64 of 1950). Appellant joined its services as a conductor in the year 1981. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. He was placed under suspension in the year 1982. In the said disciplinary proceeding, he, having been found guilty was dismissed from services.An industrial dispute was raised by him, which was eventually referred to the Labour Court by the State of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(89)FLR572]; JT2001(4)SC121; (2001)ILLJ1397SC; 2001(1)SCALE359; (2002)9SCC750
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. This civil appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which has affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The appellants who were the writ petitioners before the High Court had been recruited as officers under training, having been selected pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Corporation. It was clearly stipulated in the offer that was given to each one of them that they will be entitled to stipend @ Rs. 2,000/- per month for the first year Rs. 2,500/- per month for the second year and Rs. 2,700/- per month for the third year. They were further required to execute a bond agreeing to undergo the training for a period of three years and received the stipend as referred to earlier. They filed writ petition in Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the quantum of stipend that was fixed by the Corporation and it was contended that the GOMs 128 dated 20.03.76 issued by the Andhra Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR343]; (2007)2LLJ546SC; 2007(4)SCALE302; (2007)10SCC758; 2007AIRSCW2406; 2007IILLJ546(SC)
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.9.2005 of the Uttaranchal High Court in Writ Petition No. 774 of 2002. The appellant - U.P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), has been constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The respondent which is a Trade Union of the appellant-Corporation, filed an Application before the Labour Court, Dehradun under Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, praying for a declaration that the 15 persons who were appointed on contract basis as 'drivers' and 'conductors' as shown in the annexed chart, be declared as regular and substantive workmen of the Corporation. It was also prayed in the said Application that the concerned workmen be given all the benefits and facilities of regular employees. The aforesaid Application was allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR1194]; [2007(1)JCR126(SC)]; JT2006(9)SC561; (2007)ILLJ231SC; 2006(11)SCALE304
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is a statutory corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It has its own scheme in terms whereof gratuity is being paid at the rate of 30 days' basic pay for each completed year of service. Government Servants are, however, entitled to gratuity calculated on the basis of 15 days' basic pay for each completed year of service. Such is the position also under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). 3. Disputes and differences having arisen by and between the workmen of the Corporation and the management, a settlement was arrived at on 17.07.1999. The said settlement was valid for the period 1.01.1988 and 31.12.1991. It expired on 31.12.1991, Clause (5) whereof postulated:Dearness Allowance The rates of Dearness allowance shall be on par with the rates sanctioned by the State Government to its employees from time to time and from the same date. The enhanced Dearness Allowance shall be paid in cash. If...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2072; JT1990(2)SC448; 1990(1)SCALE342; (1990)2SCC562; [1990]1SCR614
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. I have the benefit of reading the judgment prepared by my esteemed brethren Sawant and K. Ramaswamy, JJ. Brother Sawant has taken the view that Section 20 of the Karnataka Act has not become void with the enforcement of the ''Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while Brother K. Ramaswamy has come to the contrary conclusion. Agreeing with the conclusion of Sawant, J., I have not found it possible to concur with Ramaswamy, J. Since an interesting question has arisen and in looking to the two judgments I have found additional reasons to support the conclusion of Sawant, J., I proceed to indicate the same in my separate judgment.2. These applications under Article 32 of the Constitution by a group of disgruntled applicants for contract carriage permits call in question action of the concerned transport authorities in not entertaining their applications under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) made provision for grant of contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC534; (1973)1SCC357; [1973]2SCR925; 1973(5)LC456(SC)
A. N. Grover, J1. These appeals have been brought by special leave from a judgment of the Mysore High Court.2. The facts briefly are that in August 1964 the States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh entered into a reciprocal agreement to introduce stage carriage services on the inter-State route from Bellary in Mysore State to Manthralaya in Andhra Pradesh via Chintakunta. In August 1965 the Regional Transport Authority, Bellary, called for applications for the grant of stage carriage permit for the aforesaid route. The appellant respondents 7 and 8 and several others filed applications for the grant of a permit. After complying with the necessary formalities required under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the 'Act', the Regional Transport Authority granted permits to the appellant and respondent No. 7 for one trip each day at its meeting held in August 1966. By the time the Regional Transport Authority had issued the notification calling for the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)IILLJ163SC
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court affirming the decree of the First Additional Civil & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar by which the plaintiff/respondent's suit for injunction was decreed. 2. The appeal arises in the following circumstances. The appellant which is the Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College in the district of Muzaffarnagar was registered under the Registration of Co-operative Societies Act as an institution for imparting education. The affairs of the college were managed by the Executive Committee of the Vaish College which is the appellant in this case. In the year 1957 the Vaish Degree College was affiliated to the Agra University and as a consequence thereof the college agreed to be governed by the provisions of the Agra Universities Act and the statutes and ordinances made thereunder. With the establishment of the Meerut University sometime in the year 1965 the Vaish Degree College got affilia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1828; (1971)ILLJ496SC; (1971)2SCC192; [1971]SuppSCR510
Shelat, J.1. Prior to August 1953, the respondent was employed as a motor driver in Airways (India) Ltd. On the passing of the Air Corporation Act, XXVII of 1953, and consequent thereupon of the taking over of the existing air companies, including the Airways (India) Ltd., by the appellant-Corporation, he became the employee of the appellant-Corporation. On January 13, 1956, he was suspended on certain charges. On being found guilty of those charges after an enquiry had been held, he was dismissed by an order dated February 6, 1956.2. The respondent filed a suit alleging that the enquiry had been conducted in breach of the procedure laid down by the Regulations made by the Corporation under Section 45 of the Act, and that therefore, the dismissal was illegal and void. The Trial Court accepted the contention and granted a declaration that his service continued as the order dismissing him was null and void. That decree was upheld by the first appellate court. In a second appeal in the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!