Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(2)KLJ724
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Constitutional validity of Section 2(k)(ii) of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') fixing the ceiling of the monthly wages as Rs. 750/- so as to make a 'worker' eligible to claim the benefits under the Act has been subjected to challenge in these original petitions; particularly in view of the change in circumstances, when the minimum wages payable to the workers have been increased several times as per the notifications issued by the appropriate Government at different points of time, under the relevant provisions of law.2. The petitioners are the different Trade Unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, representing the major work force in the plantations in the State of Kerala, which come within the purview of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951. It is contended that though the prescription of the ceiling of maximum wages under Section 2(k)(ii) was constitutionally valid at the time of enactment, it has become obsolete ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT356; 2012(1)KLJ255; 2012(1)ILR(Ker)512; 2012(1)KHC268
1. The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 4(1) and (3) of the Kerala Handloom Workers’ Welfare Fund Act, whereby the rate of contribution payable by the worker is enhanced from Re.1 to Rs.3, whereby the employer has to effect double the amount remitted by the worker. The case of the petitioner is that, there is no rationale on the part of the respondents in enhancing the same as per the Ordinance bearing No.19 of 2001, which was subsequently replaced by the Kerala Handloom Workers’ Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act 2001. 2. The petitioner is a company, constituted under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956 and it is having two factories, one situated near the head office of the company at Calicut and the other one at the beach, known as ‘beach unit’. It is stated that the beach unit has been subsequently closed down due to various adverse circumstances. It is admitted that the petitioner is an ‘employer’ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE16H DAY OF JULY201525TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31264 of 2014 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PAUL CHACKO, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR.2. S.REMESAN, ASSISTANT MANAGER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.3. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES' UNION (BEFI) REG.NO.327/77, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK BUILDING, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK BUILDING, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Dismissal of the Insurance cases filed by the appellants/educational institutions before the Employees Insurance Court under Section 75 r/w Sec. 77 of the Employees Insurance Act (for short Act ) for a declaration that their Institutions are not liable to be covered under the Act; that no contribution is liable to be paid by them under any circumstance; that Teachers are not liable to be considered as employees as defined under Section 2(9) of the Act and thus seeking to set aside the notice/proceedings issued by the authorities of the ESI Corporation, is the subject matter of challenge in all these cases preferred under Section 82 of the Act. In some of the cases, violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, for intruding into the minority status/rights is also projected as a ground for interference. 2. One of the main contentions raised in these appeals is as to the incompetency on the part of the authorities concerned to proceed with further st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1953)IILLJ563Ker
P.K. Subramania Ayyar, J.1. This is an application presented by the South India Cashewnut Manufacturers' Association, represented by its Honorary Secretary Prabhakar Gerald Walter, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari for removing the order L2-8772/fi0, dated 24 October 1951, passed by Government of Travancore-Cochin referring an industrial dispute to the second counter-petitioner for quashing the same and for such other appropriate relief as the court may deem fit.There are three respondents to this application who are (1) the State of Travancore-Cochin represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, (2) the .industrial tribunal, Alleppey, and (3) T.K. Divakaran, Convener, Ad hoc Committee, the All-India Cashewnut Factory Workers' Federation, Quilon. * * * * * *3. The facts are as follows. The cashewnut industry is widely carried on in the Central Travancore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1954CriLJ63
ORDERSankaran, J.1. The petitioner in both these criminal revision petitions is the same. He is the second accused in Calendar Case No. 11/50 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate's Court at Cranganur. He is also the 1st accused in Calendar Case No. 12 of 1950 on the file of the same court. Both these prosecutions were started against him for having contravened the provisions of the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950 issued by the Government of the State of Travaneore-Cochin in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 3, Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 (Act 5 of 1950).According to the prosecution, this accused obtained on loan 75 paras of paddy from the 1st accused in C. C. 11/1950 on 18-6-1950 and transported the same from the 1st accused's house in Kakkulisseri Village to the petitioner's house in Poyya village in the Mukundapuram Taluk. It is stated that the borrowing and the subsequent transport of the paddy were done without obtaining the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker149
Vahadahaja Iyengar, J 1. This revision raises the question as to whether the provision in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Indian Arbitration Act X of 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) is mandatory or merely directory, in character. In view to its importance it was referred by one of us before whom it came on in the first instance to a Division Bench. 2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent by agreement dated 19-5-1954, referred their differences in the matter of the settlement of their partnership accounts, to two arbitrators viz., respondents 2 and 3. The arbitration agreement did not, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act exclude the applicability of the First Schedule to the Act, paragraph 2 of which provided : '(2) If the reference is to an even number of arbitrators, the arbitrators shall appoint an umpire not later than one month from the latest date of their respective appointments'. However, respondents 2 and 3 did not appoint an umpire whether before they commen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1959)IILLJ760Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the award dated 19 November 1958 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, in I.D. Nos. 16 and 17 of 1958 and published in the Kerala Gazette, dated 23 December 1958.2. The petitioner, Ravikrishna Weaving Mills (Private), Ltd., Azhikode, was carrying on business in the manufacture and supply of cotton powerloom goods. It was employing about 189 labourers. In the latter half of 1957, the mill appears to have experienced some difficulty and, in consequence, the management decided in or about February 1958 to discontinue one shift in the company. In view of this decision, the management decided to lay off 74 of the juniormost workers on payment of the necessary compensation admissible in law and the lay-off was scheduled to come into effect from 1 March. 1958.3. On 1 March 1958, the 74 persons, who had been notified to be laid off, reported in the office and after signing in the lay-off r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker75
M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Kozhikode in O. S. No, 41 of 1948. The suit was for damages for the breach of a contract of affreightment and the return of the advance freight paid by the plaintiffs.2. The total claim was for a sum of Rs. 10,736-10-6. The lower Court said :'The suit is decreed with costs against defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally for the sum of Rs. 10,736-10-6 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. from the date of plaint and full costs of suit withinterest thereon at 6 per cent, from this date till realisation.'3. The 2nd defendant was the tindal of the country craft Itehrnania, the vessel concerned in this case. He had not chosen to appeal and the decree as far as he is concerned does not arise for consideration.4. In the plaint as originally filed there were only two defendants :'Tulsidas Mulji ,1011 of Mulji Vishram trading under the name and style of Vishram Khimjee'and Hasan Ayooh, the tindal m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker190; (1960)ILLJ323Ker
Joseph , J. 1. This is a petition by the Burmah Shell Workers Union, Ernakulam, praying for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing an order of the Government of Kerala dated 21-8-1957 (Ext. J) referring the disputes mentioned therein for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner also prays for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Labour Court from proceeding with the enquiry. The first respondent is the State of Kerala, the 2nd respondent, the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited, Ernakulam, the 3rd respondent T. K. Rajan, Secretary, Burmah Shell Temporary Workers Action Committee, and the 4th respondent the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ernakulam.2. The facts stated in the petitioner's affidavit may be briefly stated: The Burmah Shell Workers Union is the only representative Union of temporary workers attached to the Burmah Shell Installation, Ernakula...
Tag this Judgment!