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 : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1970P& H361
R.S. Narula, J.1. The facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellants and upholding the impugned order of acquisition of their land are as follows:--2. Nine Biswas of the disputed land situate within the municipal area of Morinda, tahsil and district Ropar, came to be owned by Raja Ram appellant No. 1 as a result of a decree in a partition suit to which his sons, appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were parties. Copies of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court are Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the writ petition respectively. Notification, dated December 17, 1968, published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary), dated December 17, 1968, at page 1025 (Annexure 'D' to the writ petition), was issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) (hereinafter called the Act). The notification related to fifteen different pieces of land out of which the land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1971]27STC42(AP)
Madhava Reddy, J. 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was provisionally assessed to sales tax on a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,85,321 in respect of the sale of scrapped vehicles and other scrap effected during the period 1st April, 1966, to 30th September, 1966. The Corporation contends that these transactions could not be deemed to be business of the Corporation so as to make it liable to be assessed to tax on the value realised by such sale.2. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The object of this Corporation is to provide or secure or promote the provision of an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated system of road transport service in the State. It is not a trading Corporation. Ever since it was constituted in 1958 it has been operating bus services on various routes in the State. In the course of its activity, scrapped vehicles, old tyres, old containers and other uns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1971Cal206
ORDERPradyot Kumar Banerjee, J.1. In this Rule the petitioner Calcutta State Transport Corporation challenges an order passed by the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal on 28th of June 1964. The respondent No. 3 claimed profit sharing bonus from the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 referred the matter to the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, for adjudication issue being Bonus for the year 1960-61. At the hearing the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the extent that the Corporation is a statutory Corporation; the fund of the Corporation can only be spent under the provisions of the Act, Section 30 of the Road Transport Corporations Act does not permit payment of any amount as bonus and as such the reference is without jurisdiction. The preliminary point was decided against the petitioner and the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule-The short point for consideration in this case is whether in view of Section 30 of the Road Transport Corporations A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971MP54; (1971)ILLJ447MP
Pandey, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Miscellaneous Petition No. 346 of 1968 also.2. The material facts of this case, which are for the most part not in dispute, are these. The petitioner is a corporation established under Section 3 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and, being a transport undertaking of the State, it carries on the business of providing to the general public motor transport facilities on numerous routes in different parts of the State and also on some inter-State routes. With a view to facilitating its operations, it has established divisions and depots at various places in the State. One of them is at Mandsaur and another at Dhar. In order to provide for the welfare of motor transport workers and to regulate the conditions of their work, the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 was placed on the Statute Book. Section 10 of that Act provides:'10. Uniforms--(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules requiring anemployer of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1970Cal557,[1971]41CompCas234(Cal),1970CriLJ1635
R.N. Dutt, J.1. The petitioner is on his trial before a Special Court at Alipore for an alleged offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The instant case was allotted to the Special Court by a notification of the State Government and the Special Court took cognizance on a petition of complaint filed before it by the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner raised an objection before the Special Court that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the instant case. But the Judge presiding over the Special Court has found that he has jurisdiction. The petitioner has thereafter obtained this Rule for quashing the proceeding pending before the Special Court against him.3. The allegations are in short as follows:--3-A. The petitioner was the Secretary of Mahasakti Samabaya Samiti, a registered Co-operative Society. While working as such Secretary the petitioner is said to have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 14,432.92p. The Special Court will have jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1972)ILLJ59Kant; (1970)2MysLJ496
Per A. Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. 94 of 1966 was recruited as a conductor on 26-2-1962 by the Divisional Controller, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore division. In respect of some alleged misconduct or misdemeanour, a disciplinary enquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service by an order dated 9-10-1964 made by the said Divisional Controller, Mysore division. An appeal against the same by him presented to the General Manager at Bangalore was dismissed. Thereupon he presented the above W.P. 94 of 1966 to this Court which was disposed of on 16-10-1968. The judgment of this Court is reported at (1968) 2 Mys. L.J. 631. This Court upheld the petitioner's contention that the power of dismissal could be competently exercised only by the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore division, in view of the express provisions of standing order No. XIII of the standing orders applicable to the Mysore Government Road Transport Department (M.G.R.T.D.). Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1971Kant99; AIR1971Mys99
Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioner in W. P. 94 of 1966 was recruited as a conductor on 26-2-1962 by the Divisional Controller. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore Division. In respect of some alleged misconduct or misdemeanour, a disciplinary enquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service by an order dated 29-10-1964 made by the said Divisional Controller, Mysore Division. An Appeal against the same by him presented to the General Manager at Bangalore was dismissed. Thereupon he presented the above Writ Petn. No. 94 of 1966 to this Court which was disposed of on 16-10-1968. The judgment of this court is reported at page 631 of 1968 (2) Mys LJ (reported In AIR 1969 SC 225). This Court upheld the petitioner's contention that the power of dismissal could be competently exercised only by the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division, in view of the express provisions of Standing Order No. XIII of the Standing Orders applicable to the Mysore Government Road...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1972CriLJ558
ORDERMadhava Reddy, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in C, C. No. 64 of 1970 to quash a charge framed against him for an offence punishable, under Section 409 I. P. C.2. It is alleged that the accused as Secretary of a Co-operative Credit Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the amount and property entrusted to him. The contention of Mr. Ravi Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the accused is that the accused is not a public servant or a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent and therefore, a charge under Section 409 I. P. C. cannot be framed. Even if all the facts alleged by the prosecution are proved, it may, at the most amount to an offence punishable under Section 406 or 408 I. P. C., and not under Section 409.3. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the accused is not a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney,...
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!