Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)ILLJ757Mad
1. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition filed by M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., Ranipet challenging the correctness of the common order passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in the claim petitions filed by respondents 2 to 86 herein under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The appellant company introduced a Retirement Benefit Scheme for the non-covenanted employees working in its specified units by General Office Order No. 26, which came into force on December l, 1943 in the Ranipet Unit with which we are concerned. While the first part of the Office Order related to retirement allowance, the second part provided for gratuity to those who were in the service of the company prior to 1947 and who did not qualify for pension. There was a settlement of disputes between the management and workers in 1956 which contained provisions for gratuity and retiring allowances. The Payment of Gratuity Act came into force on September 16, 1972. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1994(73)ELT782(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a public limited company, having its registered office at Ambattur Industrial Estate, Madras. It has imported as per the bill of lading and the packing certificate dated 22-10-1984, on high sea sale basis, materials valued at Rs. 1,00,05,000/-. It has been assessed and accordingly subjected to a demand of customs and other duties, according to it, in all Rs. 4,24,025/-. The duty, as listed by it, is :(a) additional customs duty (countervailing duty) at 35% and surcharge at 8% (in all aggregating to 26.75%) under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (b) cost of packing material at Rs. 450/- per metric tonne for calculating the customs duty at 75%; (c) landing and stevedoring charges for calculating the customs duty; (d) cost of packing material, landing and stevedoring charges in the assessable value for the levy of additional customs duty and surcharge thereon; (e) customs duty in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of additional customs duty an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1996]87CompCas438(Mad); 1995(1)CTC73; (1995)ILLJ588Mad
Srinivasan J.1. The facts which are not in dispute can be briefly stated as follows : The Buckingham and Carnatic Mills is more than a century old and it has been working at Perambur in the city of Madras for the last 119 years. Till recently, it has been one of the biggest textiles mills in the whole of Asia, having an installed spindleage capacity of 88,208 spindles, of which 79,072 were utilised. It had an installed loom capacity of 2,074 looms out of which 1,816 looms were utilised. It has a 'dye house' or 'processing house' and a central power station. It forms part of a company by name Binny Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act in 1969 by amalgamation of the Binny group of companies comprising Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company (BWM), Binny and Co. Ltd. and Binny Engineering Works Limited together with two associate companies, viz., Madura Co. P. Ltd. and the Ganges Transport and Trading Co. Ltd. Their activities are broadly or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1995Mad329
ORDERRaju, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the very same petitioner who, during the relevant period of time, was the Editor of 'Ananda Vikadan' a Tamil weekly having its registered Office at No. 758, Anna Salai, Madras-2. W.P. No. 4203 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of declaration, declaring that the Resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly dated 4-4-1987 sentencing the petitioner to three months rigorous imprisonment as unconstitutional, null and void, illegal and unenforceable. W.P. No. 4202 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the alleged flagrant violation claimed to have been committed of the petitioner's fundamental rights on account of imposing of a rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The controversy between the parties hereto has its origin centering around a cartoon published on the outer wrapper rather the front cover page of the Tamil weekly 'Ananda Vikadan' bearing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995(1)ALT(Cri)562; 1996CriLJ208
Arunachalam, J.1. A common question of law has been urged before us in all these three habeas corpus petition and hence it would be better to dispose of all these petitions through a common order. HCP No. 1676 of 1994 is capable of being disposed of on factual material, without legal ramifications, affecting its termination. 2. Facts in HCP No. 1675 of 1994 : Petitioner Tamizharasi is the wife of Arumugham, whose liberty she has coveted in this Habeas Corpus Petition, alleging that he has been kept under illegal detention in Central Prison, Madras, on and after 27-9-1994. The averments in her affidavit show that Arumugham was arrested on 27-6-1994 from his residence. Neither documents nor contraband stood recovered from him. However, it is alleged by the prosecution that he is involved in the export of certain Narcotic Drugs which were seized in a foreign country. Arumugham was remanded to judicial custody on 26-8-1994. Every 14 days, remand was being extended. The period of 90 days ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1996(73)FLR1354]
Somasundaram, J.1. As some of the parties to these writ petitions and the points involved are common, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in these writ petitions are referred to in this order as canteen employees and the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 1935 of 1994 is referred to as SRF Company and the third respondent in Writ Petition No. 1935 of 1994 who is the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 4256 of 1994, viz, the Management of Industrial Catering Services (Private), Ltd., Royapuram, Madras 13, is referred to as contractor. 2. Writ Petition No. 1935 of 1994 is filed by the workmen employed in the canteen provided by SRF Company and run by the contractor, for the issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the SRF Company from dispensing with the services of 119 canteen employees without prior permission as per S. 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The SRF Company has got a factor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1956
Arunachalam, J.1. A storm, not one natural, had blown over the campus, which accommodates the Courts of certain Metropolitan Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates, in Saidapet on 26-7-1995. The unusual impact of the storm had led to public dismay and has anguished this Court, the consequence of which is the initiation of this suo moto contempt proceedings. 2. The manner in which these proceedings stood initiated can be best noticed from the order pronounced by us on 7-8-1995, the relevant portion of which reads as hereunder :- 'The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on receipt of a telegraph from Mrs. T. Lakshmi Bharathi. Advocate, dated 26-7-1995, as well as certain other complaints inclusive of a petition signed by 45 Advocates of Saidapet Bar, coupled with a resolution passed by the Advocates' Association, Madras, had called for a report even on the initial material regarding the actual happenings at the Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts campus on 26-7-1995 from about 1O a.m. to late...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ647Mad
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 19967 of 1994 is a practising advocate in this Court. According to him, the writ petition has been filed by him without any motive against the respondents and the same has been filed in good faith in order to safeguard the constitutional provisions, judicial principles and public justice. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of quo-warranto to the 4th respondent Thiru N. Haribaskar as to in what capacity he is holding the office of Chief Secretaryship and discharging its functions, after November 30, 1994.2. W.P. No. 20297 of 1994 is filed by Mr. K. Rajaram, former Speaker of the Tamil, Nadu Legislative Assembly, former Member of Parliament and a former Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu challenging the extension of service given to Thiru N. Haribaskar, Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. According to him, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu overlooking the constitutional provisions and the Tamil Nadu G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ170Mad
Janarthanam, J.1. Certain events and incidents, which formed the backdrop and setting of the present actions - Writ Appeal No. 332 of 1994 and Writ Petitions Nos. 3124, 3125 and 3917 of 1993 better it is, we feel, to relate to have a proper understanding and fine grasp, with ease and grace - of the legal implications or positions to be derived or to flow from the factual matrix, giving rise to certain issues - so moot and complicated in nature - with which, we are now called upon to decide, by giving our anxious consideration. E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited (for short,'the employer') has one of its units located at Ranipet in the State of Tamil Nadu, where sanitary ware, superphospate and insecticides are manufactured. Some of its retired employees filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947 - for, short, 'the I.D. Act'), before the Labour Court, Madras, claiming pension by alleging that pay ability of pension was a condition of servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC725; (1998)IMLJ89
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. L.P.A. No. 53 of 1993 was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated December 16, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 554 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation against the order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 283 of 1983. 2. L.P.A. No. 179 of 1993 was filed by the Proprietor of Madras Type Foundry against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated October 24, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 469 of 1984 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 26 of 1983. 3. L.P.A. No. 148 of 1995 was filed by the Corporation against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated September 7, 1994 in C.M.A. No. 933 of 1986 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Addition...
Tag this Judgment!