Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1217; 1971(0)BLJR262; [1971(21)FLR11]; 1970LabIC1040; (1970)IILLJ138SC; (1970)1SCC490; [1970]3SCR708
J.M. Shelat, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the High Court of Patna dismissing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the award passed by the Labour Court on a reference to it of an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The reference arose from the following facts : Prior to April 20, 1959 the Government of Bihar was conducting through one of its departments, called the Rajya Transport Authority, an undertaking of road transport in the State. The said Authority appointed respondent 3 as a Head Clerk in the office of the Divisional Manager, Rajya Transport, Bhagalpur, as from July 27, 1956. The order appointing him stated that the appointment was purely temporary and was terminable without notice and without assigning any reasons. By an order dated February 18, 1959, issued by the State Transport Commissioner, Rajya Transport, he was discharged from service with immediate effect. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1680; (1986)IILLJ351SC; 1986(1)SCALE794; (1986)3SCC273; [1986]2SCR509; 1986(2)LC542(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. Special Leave to appeal is granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the respondents' writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of termination of service on the ground that it was violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was selected for appointment as Conductor in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation constituted under the Transport Act, 1950, his name was placed on the select list prepared by the Selection Committee constituted under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulation 1982. He was not given a regular appointment but he was appointed to work as conductor in temporary vacancy. He continued to work for a period of more than 240 days. While he was working as conductor his services were terminated by the Order dt. 2-4/5 of 1985 on the ground o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC1376; [1960]1SCR580
Subba Rao, J.1. These appeals on certificates are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issuing writs of certiorari to quash the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh confirming a scheme of nationalization on transport and the subsequent orders of the Regional Transport Authority cancelling the appellants' stage carriage permits. 2. These appeals are the off-shoot of the judgment of this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation [1959] S.C.R. 319, delivered on November 5, 1958. The facts were fully stated therein. It would be only necessary to recapitulate briefly the facts relevant to the present enquiry : The appellants were carrying on motor transport business for several years in Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Guru Pershad, styled as the General Manager of the State Trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC883; 1985(1)SCALE196; (1985)2SCC16; [1985]2SCR815; 1985(17)LC633(SC)
E.S.Venkataramiah, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are filed against the judgment dated August 13, 1970 of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 34 of 1969 City Board, Mussoorie v. State Electricity Board and Ors. : AIR1971All219 by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity Board') constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the City Board, Mussoorie, a local authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the City Board') respectively.2. The City Board as a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 used to get bulk supply of electric energy from the Electricity Board from the Ganga-Sarda Grid and in its turn was distributing it to the consumers within its jurisdiction. In the year 1962, under a notification dated April 24, 1962 issued under Section 46 of the Act, the tariff payable by the City Board and other licensees in the Ganga-Sarda Grid was fixed by the Electricity Board. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(5)SC610; 1995(4)SCALE611; (1995)5SCC251; [1995]Supp2SCR433
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. :1. Leave granted.2. The question arising in this batch of appeals is whether the properties vested in the International Airport Authority of India under the provisions of International Airports Authority Act, 1971 can yet be called the properties of the Union within the meaning of Article 285 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State - to be more precise by the municipality. The Delhi High Court has answered the said question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Delhi Municipal Corporation whereas the Calcutta High Court has taken a contrary view. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has also taken the same view as the Calcutta High Court but the said judgment is now the subject matter of a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the same court.3. Article 285 comprises two clauses. Though clause (2) is not attracted in these matters, we may yet set out the enti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5257 OF2018(@ SLP (C) NO.26954 OF2017 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ...APPELLANT VERSUS BABY P.P. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5258 OF2018(@SLP (C) NO.32804 OF2017 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ...APPELLANT VERSUS JOY C.A. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO.5259 OF2018(@SLP (C) NO.101 OF2018 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ...APPELLANT VERSUS JIJO & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS2JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 02.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P.(C) No.1827 of 2017, O.P.(C) No.1784 of 2017 and O.P.(C) No.581 of 2017 dismissing the writ petitions and consequently confirming the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by respondent no.5 herein, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as STAT) in M.V.A.R.P No.53 of 2016. Therei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.21762 OF2017ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.8193/2012; C.A. No.5057/2012; C.A. No.5058/2014; C.A. No.9974/2018; C.A. No.5056/2012; C.A. No.4196/2015; C.A. No.4374/2015; C.A. No.9380/2017; C.A. No.13071/2017; C.A. No.12058/2017; C.A. No.16375/2017; C.A. No.12869/2017; C.A. No.17527/2017; C.A. No.21845/2017; C.A. No.5719/2018; C.A. No.9886/2018; C.A. No.9200/2018; C.A. No.9860/2018; C.A. No.10114/2018; C.A. No.1643/2019; C.A. No.3596/2018; C.A. No.6762/2018; C.A. No.3972/2018; C.A. No.3343/2018; C.A. No.3359/2018; C.A. No.3971/2018; C.A. No.3347/2018; C.A. No.6489/2018; C.A. No.10598/2018; C.A. No.7643/2018; C.A. No.8321/2018; C.A. No.8554/2018; C.A. No.9172/2018; C.A. No.10406/2018; C.A. No.11259/2018; C.A. No.11884/2018; C.A. No.226/2019; C.A. No.170/2019; C.A. No.2047/2019; C.A. No.2335/2019; C.A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(5)SC454a; (1994)ILLJ136SC; 1993(3)SCALE884
ORDER1. These appeals and the special leave petition have been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' which is constituted under the provisions of Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The respondents in these matters were employees of the Corporation. Their services were terminated on charges of misconduct. They filed civil suits seeking declaration that the termination of their services was null and void and that they should be treated under employment of the Corporation. The orders of termination were assailed on the ground that the same had been passed in contravention of the Standing Orders framed by the Corporation under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act as well as Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The said suits have been decreed by the courts below.2. The question which has been raised by the Corporation is with regard to jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain the suits. It has been urged tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1785; 1986(2)SCALE249; (1986)4SCC21; [1986]3SCR540; 1986(2)LC718(SC)
ORDERMisra, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether a suit is maintainable in a civil court for an injunction restraining the Hearing Authority appointed under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from proceedings with the hearing of matters under that provision and from approving a scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act either with or without any modification.2. The petitioner is the holder of a permit issued under Chapter IV of the Act to ply a stage carriage on Bulandshahr-Siana-Garh-Bugrasi-Brijghat-Bhasians-Shambhaoli-Babugarh-Jadol-Jahangirabad route in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State Transport Undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh published a scheme dated March 7, 1975 in the U.P. Gazette dated April 5, 1975 under Section 68-C of the Act proposing to operate its stage carriages to the exclusion of all private operators on the route referred to above. The petitioner filed his o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.152 of 2022 The Employees State Insurance Corporation ....Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J A Introduction ...........................................................................................................3 B Submissions .........................................................................................................5 C Analysis ..............................................................................................................1 2 D Conclusion ..........................................................................................................2 6 2 PART A A Introduction 1 Leave granted. 1 2 The Employees State Insurance Corporation is in appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 5 September 2019. The Division Bench rejected the petition filed by the appellant against th...
Tag this Judgment!