Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC725
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. Before the Additional Judicial Commissioner Chotanagpur at Daltongunj, fourteen persons were put up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 19(E) and 19(F) of the Arms Act. The Additional Judicial Commissioner convicted nine out of the fourteen persons. He convicted the 1st accused Shambhu Nath Singh for the offence under Section 302 and for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and 19(F) of the Arms Act. For the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the 1st accused Shambhu Nath Singh was sentenced to transportation for life; for the other offences no separate sentences were passed. The learned Judge convicted accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for offences under Section 326 read with Section 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them for the offence under Section 326 read with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC407; (1959)IILLJ837SC
K.N. Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are these: The appellant is a cotton mill in Ahmedabad. Respondents Nos. 2(a) to 2(n) are the fourteen employees of the appellant designated as grey-folders. Under the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938, (since repealed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, No. XI of 1947, which came into force on April 15, 1947), the Registrar had made a notification recognising various occupations in cotton textile mills. Folders were put in group 'F' of this notification while clerks were put in group 'H'. In December 1946, the Textile Labour Association of Ahmedabad gave a notice of change to the Mill-owners' Association for standardisation of wages of the various occupations in the cotton textile industry. Thereupon a reference was made by the State Government in Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC233; [1960]2SCR75
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature for Punjab at Chandigarh is directed against its judgment confirming that of the Subordinate Judge, First class, Delhi, in a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant for the recovery of compensation in respect of non-delivery of goods entrusted by the former to the latter for transit to New Delhi. 2. On August 15, 1947, India was constituted into two Dominions, India and Pakistan; and soon thereafter civil disturbances broke out in both the Dominions. The respondent and other, who were in government employment at Quetta, found themselves caught in the disturbances and took refuge with their household effects in a government camp. The respondent collected the goods of himself and of sixteen other officers, and on September 4, 1947 booked them at Quetta Railway Station to New Delhi by a passenger train as per parcel way bill No. 317909. Under the said bill the respondent was both the consignor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC266; [1960]2SCR89
Imam, J.1. These appeals are on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court and they have been heard together as they arise out of a single judgment of the High Court. In Criminal Appeals Nos. 100 to 105 of 1954 Satwant Singh is the Appellant and in Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 to 129 of 1954 the State of Punjab is the appellant. 2. Although in these appeals only question of law have been urged it is necessary to set out briefly some of the facts which led to the prosecution and conviction of Satwant Singh. As a result of the Japanese invasion of Burma in 1942 the Government of Burma and the Allied forces stationed there were completed to leave that country. In connection with the evacuation from Burma and the defence of that country the Government of Burma and the army had to execute certain works such as the construction of roads, repairs and construction of bridges, strengthening and repairing of old tracks and converting railway lines into motor roads. Some of these works were exec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC239; 1960CriLJ289; [1960]2SCR58
ORDER - 33. In according with the opinion of the majority the appeal is allowed, the order of the Calcutta High Court direction the complaint to be proceeded within the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate is set aside, and the proceedings against the appellant are quashed. 34. Appeal allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC653
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal delivered on April 20, 1954 in the industrial dispute between the several Banks and their employees. It appears that this dispute was referred to the adjudication of the Sastri Tribunal by the Central Government on January 1, 1952. The Sastri Tribunal made its award covering a large number of points raised before it. The said award was challenged both by the Banks and their employees before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which gave its decision on April 20, 1954. The decision, like the award, dealt with several points of dispute between the parties. Against a part of this decision the present appeal has been filed by the Indian Bank Ltd., (hereinafter called the appellant) by special leave; and only two points are raised before us on its behalf by Mr. Sastri.2. The first point has reference to the direction given by the Sastri Tribunal in regard to the stoppage of annual increments ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC413; [1960(1)FLR110]
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., (hereinafter called the appellant) and its workmen (hereinafter called the respondents) which was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal. The dispute related to several items of claim made by the respondents but in the present appeal we are concerned only with one of them; that is the respondents' claim for gratuity. The tribunal considered the objections raised by the appellant against the scheme of gratuity which was then in force and held that there was no substance in them. Certain alterations were suggested by the respondents in the said scheme some of which were accepted by the tribunal. In the result an award was made directing appropriate revision of the scheme of gratuity. Against this award the appellant preferred an appeal, and on its behalf the same contentions were raised and with the same result. The appellate tribunal saw no r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC251; [1963(7)FLR463]; (1959)IILLJ830SC
Gajendragadkar, J.1. Are workmen entitled to the double benefit of gratuity scheme as well as retrenchment compensation That is the main question which falls to be considered in the present appeal. The same question along with some other subsidiary points arises in some other appeals and so all of them have been grouped together and placed before us for disposal. We propose to deal with the main point in the present appeal and discuss the other points arising in the other appeals separately. 2. This appeal by special level arises from an industrial dispute between the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter called the appellant) and its workmen monthly-rated including canteen boys employed under it (hereinafter called the respondents). The dispute was in regard to the claim for gratuity made by the respondents and it was referred to the tribunal in these words : 'Gratuity - employees should be paid gratuity on the scale and the conditions prescribed in the industrial tribunal's ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC257; (1959)IILLJ840SC; [1960]2SCR45
Wanchoo, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India in an industrial matter. The appellant is a partnership concern carrying on business in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. There was a gratuity scheme in force in the appellant-concern for a long time. This scheme was modified by an award of the industrial tribunal dated August 18, 1952 (hereinafter called the Award), and since then the modified scheme has been in force. The financial condition of the appellant deteriorated and consequently, it was compelled to retrench a number of workmen. It, therefore, applied to the Appellate Tribunal under s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (No. XLVIII of 1950), for permission to retrench 89 workmen. The Appellate Tribunal granted permission for retrenchment of 75 workmen only. Consequently, after obtaining such permission, the appellant retrenched the workmen and paid them compensation as provided in 25F of the Indu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC207; (1959)IILLJ826SC; [1960]2SCR51
Wanchoo, J.1. These two appeal by special leave arise out of two reference made by the Government of Bombay in connection with a dispute between the appellant-company and two sets of its workmen, namely, clerical staff and staff other than clerical. The clerical staff had raised four questions which were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay for adjudication. Of these, only two points survive in the present appeal, namely, retirement age and gratuity. The non-clerical staff had raised two questions of which only on relating to gratuity arises before us. 2. It appears that the appellant-company is an all-India concern but the major part of its business concentrated in Calcutta. The number of non-clerical staff outside Calcutta is very small as compared to the non-clerical staff in Calcutta while the clerical staff outside Calcutta is much less than the clerical staff in Calcutta. The company had a gratuity scheme in force which applied to both clerical and non-clerical staff, thou...
Tag this Judgment!