Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ161Mad
Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the order dated 30th July, 1976 made by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras-5 (first respondent) in Lay-Off Application No 2 of 1916.2. The short facts are as follows : The petitioner is engaged in engineering industry and has among others, a plant called Plant No. II at Sembiam, Madras-11.3. Amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Parent Act) was enacted by the Parliament called the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act of 1976 Central Act 32 of 1976)(hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act). One of the sections introduced by the Amendment Act was Section 25M. The broad feature of Section 25M was that it required an establishment covered by the new Chapter V (B) within which the establishment should apply for permission to effect lay-off of its workmen when such lay-off was due to shortage of power or natural calamities. By Sub-section (2) of Section 25M it was provided where workmen of such establishmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ211Mad
ORDERMohan, J.1. This writ petition is for declaration declaring the Life Insurance Corporation -Development Officers (Alteration of Remunerations and other Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 197f, dated 8-4-1976 and the consequential Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Amendment Regulations, 1976, dated 22-4-1976 as ultra vres of Section 11(1)(2) and Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and also as violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, in so far as it affects the petitioner.2. On 1-12-1955 the petitioner joined the service of the United India Life Assurance Company, which was carrying on life insurance business as an organiser. Under the terms and conditions of the services of the company, he was a whole time employee. His functions as organiser were to recruit, guide and supervise the insurance agents who were appointed by the company on his recommendations and to see that maximum poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1977Mad386
1. In these petitions the validity of certain proclamations issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, under S. 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with S. 7(1)(c) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on 16-1-1975, is challenged mainly on the ground that the detention orders passed against the petitioners by the State Government under S. 3 of the latter Act which formed the basis for the said impugned proclamations are invalid. These petitions originally came up for hearing before Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., who, after hearing the arguments for some time referred them to a Division Bench, as he felt that the petitions involve constitutional points of considerable public importance. These petitions were then heard by a Division Bench consisting of Paul and Varadarajan, JJ. On account of a difference of opinion between them, they were posted before Natarajan J. as per S. 392 Crl. P. C. Before him it was urged by the State f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1708
Ramanujam, J.1. In these petitions the validity of cerain proclamations issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, Under Section 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 7(1)(c) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on 16-1-1975, is challenged mainly on the ground that the detention orders passed against the petitioners by the State Government Under Section 3 of the latter Act which formed the basis for the said impugned proclamations are invalid. These petitions originally came up for hearing before Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., who, after hearing the arguments for some time referred them to a Division Bench, as he felt that the petitions involve constitutional points of considerable public importance. These petitions were then heard by a Division Bench consisting of Paul and Varadarajan, JJ. On account of a difference of opinion between them, they were posted before Nalarajan J. as per Section 392 Cri. P. C. Before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1978)ILLJ259Mad
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein was originally appointed by the Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., by an order dated 2-1-1963 as a Probationery Field Officer. The said order of appointment provided that his services might be deemed to be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice on either side. Subsequently he was confirmed as a Field Officer by an office order dated 29-9-1963 with effect from 1-9-1963. He was then promoted as a Development Officer and later as a Development Secretary. Later, by an order dated 19-2-1970 the petitioner was promoted as Development Manager of the Madras Regional office with effect from 1-2-1970. While he was functioning as a Development Manager, a custodian was appointed for the Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., under the Nationalisation Act 17 of 1971. At that stage certain powers given to the petitioner to represent the Society in the matter of signing policies appears to have been withdrawn by the Zonal Manager, as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1979Mad246
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the points involved in all these petitions are the same, they are dealt with together.2. As the facts in all the cases are substantially the same, it is enough if we deal with the facts in the first case, that is, W.P. 465 of 1978. The petitioner in W.P. No. 465 of 1978 is one Satish Mazumdar. who has adopted the affidavit filed by one N. S. Mani in W.Ps. 463 and 464 of 1978 which have already been disposed of by one of us on 9-2-1978. The petitioner in W.P. 465 of 1978 was a holder of liquor permit issued by the State of Tamil Nadu since September 1974 and that permit expired on 20-1-1978. On 3-2-1978, he applied for the renewal of the said permit in accordance with the Madras Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules 1960, hereinafter referred to as the rules, in the prescribed form. Just before the renewal application was filed, certain modifications were effected in the said rules by G. O. Ms. 3495 Home dated 31-12-1977 published on 1-1-1978. Rule 10(B)(1) of the Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1979)1MLJ119
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. Since the points involved in all these petitions are the same, they-are dealt with together.2. As the facts in all the cases are substantially the same, it is enough if we deal with the facts in the first case that is W.P. No. 465 of 1978. The petitioner in W.P. No. 465 of 1978 is one Satish Majumdar who has adopted the affidavit filed by one N.S. Mani in W.P. Nos. 463 and 464 of 1978 which have already been disposed of by one of us on 9th February 1978. The petitioner in W.P. No. 465 of 1978 was a holder of a liquor permit issued by t he-State of Tamil Nadu since September, 1974 and that permit expired on 20th January, 1978. On 3rd February, 1978 he applied for the renewal of the said permit in accordance with the Madras Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the rules, in the prescribed form. Just before the renewal application was filed certain nodifications were effected in the said rules by G.O.Ms. No. 3495, Home dated 31st Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1980)1MLJ153
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The civil revision petition has been preferred by the judgment-debtor against the order in R.E.A. No. 157 of 1977 in R.E.P. No. 82 of 1974 in O.S.No. 19 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri.2. The first respondent Vadivel Mudaliar obtained a money decree against the petitioner in O.S.No. 19 of 1969. The decree was amended. After the amendment the decree-holder brought the properties to sale in execution of the decree. At the Court-auction sale held on 16th January, 1975, the second respondent purchased the property. On the date on which the Court-sale took place the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1975) (hereinafter called Ordinance No. 1 of 1975) was in force. Under Section 4 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1975 all further proceedings in suits and applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3, in which relief is claimed against an agriculturist, not being proceedings for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ186Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. These four appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by Ismail, J., dismissing Writ Petitions Nos. 253, 360, 361 and 362 of 1974, wherein the petitioners sought writs of mandamus directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to refer certain disputes under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. All the four appellants were employees of the second respondent which is the same in all the appeals. The appellants had been arrested in August, 1970 and detained in prison as they were involved in the land grab agitation organised by the Communist Party of India of Tamil Nadu. While they were in prison they had sent leave letters to the second respondent praying for leave till they were released and were in a position to report for duty. The second respondent did not grant the leave applied for by the appellants, but on 1st September, 1970, sent a communication to the appellants stating that in view of their absence, as per the relevant standing orders, they should be tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ262Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited, against the common order of the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948 in Appeal Nos. 1 to 7 of 1977. The petitioner herein had preferred Appeal No. 1 of 1977 against the order made by the Certifying Officer, being the second respondent herein, whereas Appeal Nos. 2 to 7 of 1977 were filed by the same unions objecting to certain clauses in the Standing Orders, certified under order dated 10.6.1977.2. The petitioner submitted draft Standing Orders on 24.5.1976 to be effective from 1.7.72 and in the draft Standing Orders, comprehensive provisions have been contemplated in respect of the service conditions of the employees.3. In this writ petition, the petitioner, among other grounds, disputes about the provisions made in the Standing Orders in respect of superannuation Compulsory Retirement, Casual leave, confirmation of probation, Recruitment of Apprentices, Unauthoris...
Tag this Judgment!