Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC37; 1975LabIC581; (1975)IILLJ110SC; (1975)4SCC339; 1975(7)LC499(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland declaring that the termination of the services of the respondent, being violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution was illegal.2. The respondent, A.K. Deb, joined service as a Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Veterinary Department, Assam, on 1-4-1937. He was confirmed in that post on 28-8-1937. He was promoted as Upper Division Assistant and confirmed as such on 26 8-1943. He got further promotion as Head Assistant and was confirmed in that post with effect from 20-6-1946. Thereafter on 26-4-1947, he was appointed as Personal Assistant against a newly created temporary post in higher scale. He continued to work in that post till 18-8-1949 when he was reverted to the post of Head Assistant. On 8-11-1951, the Director of Veterinary Department drew up proceedings against the Respondent on certain charges. As a result, the Respondent was reverted to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1737; [1975(31)FLR266]; 1975LabIC1218; (1975)IILLJ336SC; (1975)4SCC679; [1976]1SCR231; 1975(7)LC597(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave filed by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. from the award dated 8-3-1969 made by the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The Governor of West Bengal made the reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-hereinafter called the Act for adjudication on the following 5 issues: (1) Allowance for the education of employees' children (2) House Building loan; (3) Free conveyance or conveyance allowance; (4) Revision of Lunch allowance; (5) Whether the following canteen employees should be made permanent'-the names of 10 employees given. The Tribunal granted no relief to the workmen on issues 2 and 3 allowed their claim in part in respect of issues 1, 4 and 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said award the appellant which is a Government company constituted under Section 617 of the Companies Act, the shares of which are entirely owned by the Central Government has filed this appeal. The dispute relates to about 1,000 workmen w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1758; (1976)1SCC128; [1976]1SCR277
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The rent control law has been a rich source of lengthy litigation in the country and the present appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution at the instance of the appellant-landlord, is illustrative of one reason for such proliferation of cases, namely, the lack of clarity in legislative drafting and dovetailing of amendments which have the potential for creating interpretative confusion.2. The facts are few and may be stated briefly, although, at a later stage, further details may have to be mentioned at relevant places to illumine the arguments advanced on both sides by counsel, Shri R. K. Garg (for the appellant) and Shri V. M. Tar-kunde (for the respondent). Shortly put, the legal issues are only three: (A) Is a cinema theatre, equipped with projectors and other fittings and ready to be launched as an entertainment house, an 'accommodation' as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1906; 1975LabIC1446; (1975)2SCC553; [1976]1SCR300
N.L. Untwalia, J.162. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a lecturer in Mining in the Orissa School of Mining Engineering, Keonjhargarh on 6-2-1960. The said School was brought under the administrative control of the Industries, Department of the Government of Orissa in pursuance of a Resolution dated 18-2-1960. The service of respondent No. 1 thereupon stood transferred tinder the administrative control of the Industries Department with effect from 21-3-1960. The post of the lecturer in the Mining Engineering School was upgraded by order of the State Government made in August. 1960. The petitioner was brought into the common cadre of the Industries Department of Government of Orissa and while he was so continuing, he was appointed as Principal of the Mining Engineering School. The provisional appointment made was regularized by the Industries Department by a notification dated 19-12-1962, a copy of which was Annexure D/2 to the writ application. This notification clearly shows that at t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1935; (1976)3SCC167; [1976]1SCR721
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The Trustees of the Port of Madras, appellants herein, filed Suit No. 158 of 1966 in the High Court of Madras for recovering a sum of Rs. 3,18,968.04 from the respondents by way of demurrage. The 1st respondent is a firm called M/s. Aminchand Pyare lal. the 2nd respondent is the Union of India and the 3rd respondent is the Collector of Customs, Madras. A learned single Judge referred the suit to a Division Bench which dismissed it by a judgment dated December 23, 1971. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution.2. On April 10, 1963, a Steamer 'A. P. J. AKASH' arrived at the Madras Port and landed, among other goods, a consignment of 202 bundles of black plain sheets of various sizes. The appellants received the goods and stored them in transit sheds. The goods were Imported by the 1st respondent under an authorisation issued by the State Trading Corporation of India which held a licence dated June 16, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC490; 1976LabIC395; (1976)ILLJ376SC; (1976)2SCC310; [1976]1SCR906
ORDERGovernment are pleased to order that the period of temporary exemption granted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the G. O. read above from passing all tests (unified and special or departmental tests) be extended from 13-1-1974 to cover a period during which two tests are held by the Public Service Commission and results thereof published so that each individual gets two chances to appear. Government also order that these categories of employees will not be given any further extension of time to acquire the test qualifications.50. Respondent No. 1 passed all the tests by November 2, 1971. The other respondents, who are members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and who too were lower division clerks working in the Registration Department of the State, were promoted as upper division clerks even though they had not passed the tests mentioned above. Respondent No. 1 was not, however, promoted despite the fact that he had passed the requisite tests. In 1972 out of 51 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC242; (1976)2SCC291; [1976]2SCR48
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. These appeals have filled us as much with deep sorrow as with pained surprise. The story of the alleged 'professional misconduct' and the insensitivity of the disciplinary authority to aberrant professional conduct have been the source of our distress, as we will presently explain, after unfurling the factual canvas first.2. The first chapter of the litigation in this Court related to the standing of the State Bar Council to appeal to this Court, under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) against an appellate decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal appointed by the Bar Council of India. this Court upheld the competence to appeal, thus leading us to the present stage of disposing of the eight cases on merits.3. The epileptic episodes - what other epithet can adequately express the solicitation circus dramatised by the witnesses as practised by the panel of advocate-respondents before us?-make us blush in the narration. For, after all, do we no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC145; [1975(31)FLR358]; (1976)ILLJ33SC; (1975)2SCC847; [1976]2SCR138
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. Here, in this case, once again arises the question as to what is an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This question has continually baffled and perplexed the Courts in our country. There have been various judicial ventures in this rather volatile area of the law. The Act gives a definition of 'industry' in Section 2(j) but this definition is not very vocal and it has defied analysis, so that judicial effort has been ultimately reduced merely to evolving tests by reference to characteristics regarded as essential for constituting an activity as an 'industry'. The decided cases show that these tests have not been uniform; they have been guided more by an empirical rather than a strictly analytical approach. Sometimes these tests have been liberally conceived, sometimes narrowly. The latest exposition is to be found in the judgment of a Bench of six Judges of this Court in Safdarjung Hospital v. K. S. Sethi : (1970)IILLJ266SC . But wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC66; (1976)ILLJ81SC; (1975)2SCC835; 1975(7)LC879(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. Is an apprentice an 'employee' under the 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 That is the question raised in this appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) & (b) of the Constitution from the judgment of the Patna High Court by which it refused to interfere with the order of the Industrial Tribunal passed under Section 73B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (briefly the Act). 2. The respondent is a public limited company having its registered office at Bombay and its factory at Jamashedpur in the State of Bihar. The Act is applicable to the company's factory. Besides regular employees in the company, there are two acts of apprentices, namely, graduate apprentice for a period of two years and trade apprentices for the duration of three years. The graduate apprentices receive stipend of Rs. 250,00 per month in the first year and Rs. 300,00 per month during the second year. The trade apprentices receive stipend at the rate of Rs. 2.00, Rs. 2.50 and Rs. 3.00...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2299; 1975(Supp)SCC1; [1976]2SCR347
A.N. Ray, J.1. In Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975 the appellant is Indira Nehru Gandhi and the respondent is Raj Narain. Civil Appeal No. 909 of 1975 is the cross objection of the respondent. On 14 July, 1975 it was directed that both the appeals would be heard together. The appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 12 June, 1975. The High Court held that the appellant held herself out as a candidate from 29 December, 1970 and was guilty of having committed corrupt practice by having obtained the assistance of Gazetted Officers in furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court further found the appellant guilty of corrupt practice committed under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act by having obtained the assistance of Yashpal Kapur a Gazetted Officer for the furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court held the appellant to be disqualified for a period of six years from the date o...
Tag this Judgment!