Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1286; [1965(10)FLR250]; (1960)ILLJ561SC
K.N. Wanchaoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter. The appellant is a steamer company with its head office at Calcutta. There was a dispute between the appellant and its workmen, which was referred to the Sixth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. Out of the matters in dispute before the tribunal, there are only two which survive in the present appeal, namely, (i) dearness allowance for steamer and flat clerks and (ii) working hours for ghat employees on Saturdays.Re. (i).(2) The pay scales of the flat and steamer clerks and the dearness allowance payable to them have been matters of adjudication in previous awards between the company and its workmen. The first of these disputes was in 1948 and in the award following that dispute these clerks were put in grade 'E'. Then there was another dispute in 1953, in which a claim for revision was rejected. Eventually by settlement between the company and its workmen, the scale of these clerks was raised to Rs. 60-3-102...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC871; 1960CriLJ1244; [1960]3SCR358
Shah, J.1. M/s. Lalji Raja & Sons - who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondents - are the owners of an oil seed pressing factory known as the Gouranga Oil Mill situated within the limits of the Bankura Municipality in the State of West Bengal. For extracting oil, the respondents import mustard seed from different areas. The respondents also hold a license for the sale of mustard seed. 2. On the application of the Sanitary Inspector of the Bankura Municipality, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bankura, issued a search warrant directing seizure of 900 bags of 'rotten and decomposed mustard seed', 600 bags stored in the mill godown and 300 bags stored in the court-yard of the rice mill at Hanseswar Maji. Pursuant to the search, a large quantity of mustard seed spread out for drying in the Gouranga Oil Mill was seized, and certain bags lying in the rice mill were also seized. On the report made by the Sanitary Inspector, the Chairman of the Municipality applied to the District Magist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC875; [1960(1)FLR186]; (1960)ILLJ551SC; [1960]3SCR350
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, directing the appellant, M/s. New India Motors Private Ltd., to reinstate its former employee, K. T. Morris, the respondent, in his original post as field service representative and to pay him his back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement. This award has been made on a complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant under s. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). It appears that before joining the appellant the respondent was working with a firm in Calcutta; prior to that he was field service representative of M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay. The respondent joined the services of the appellant sometime in May 1954 as Works Manager. Before he joined the services of the appellant he had been told by the appellant by its letter dated March 27, 1954, that the appellant wou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1960]40ITR298(SC)
HIDAYATULLAH, J. - This appeal has been filed with the special leave of this court against a decision of the High Court of Mysore, by which it dismissed in limine an application by the appellants under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition or some other appropriate writ against the Income-tax Officer, Bellari, Special Circle, Bangalore.The facts of the case are as follows. For the assessment year 1948-49, the appellants failed to file a return within the prescribed time and the Income-tax Officer, acting under section 28(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, issued a notice to them to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. In answer to this notice, the appellants filed a written reply and the Income-tax Officer proceeded to levy a penalty of Rs. 16,000, without affording a hearing to them as required by the third sub-section of section 28 of the Income-tax Act. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of not granted to the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1670; (1960)ILLJ558SC
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the Appellant Sri Sitaram Sugar Mills Ltd., and its workmen, the respondents. The dispute in question was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal by the U. P. Government and it was in reference to the payment of Rs. 1,130-8-9 made by the appellant as bonus to employees engaged at the head office at Calcutta. The respondents' case was that under the U. P. Government Order which regulates the payment of bonus the said employees were not entitled to share in the bonus whereas the appellant urged that the said employees were included amongst its employees and payment of bonus to them was fully justified. The relevant year is 1953-1954. During this year the total bonus distributed by the appellant was Rs. 19,985; out of this amount the appellant paid Rs. 1130-8-9 to the employees at its head office at Calcutta, and it is in regard to this latter payment that the present dispute h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC209; (1961)IILLJ130SC
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The two disputes on which the reference out of which the present appeal has arisen was made were in these terms: 1. Whether there has been any departure from the past practice by the Management in the matter of encashment of privilege leave and, if so, what directions are necessary in this respect 2. Whether leave facilities to subordinate staff should be granted on the same basis as other staff members and what directions are necessary in this respect 2. The workmen's contention was that since 1948 till shortly before the dispute arose the company had been encashing privilege leave standing to the credit of the workmen after keeping 30 days at the credit and this practice became by implication a part of the terms and conditions of service. The employer's case on this question of encashment was that this matter was dealt with by the company's Rule 45 under which encashment of privilege leave was permitted only 'if privilege leave, which would lapse unless availed o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC833; [1960(1)FLR89]; (1960)IILLJ21SC; [1960]3SCR329
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the award passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, by which a scheme for gratuity has been framed in favour of the workmen represented by the respondent, Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, who are employed by the textile mills in Ahmedabad including the twenty appellant mills before us. In order to appreciate the points of law raised by the appellants in the present appeal we ought to state at the outset the material facts leading to the present dispute in which the impugned scheme for gratuity has been framed. On June 13, 1950, the respondent gave notice under s. 42(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bom. XI of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act), intimating to the Mill Owners' Association at Ahmedabad (hereinafter called the Association) that it desired a change as specified in the annexure to the communication. The annexure showed that the respondent wanted a change in that a scheme for gratuity s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC862; [1960]3SCR311
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal filed with a certificate granted under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature of the State of Hyderabad. 2. The appellant was a Jagirdar holding jagirs Ramwarm Chandam Palli and Gulla Palli, Taluq Sirsalla, in the District of Karimnagar in the State of Hyderabad. After the Police Action in August, 1948, Major General Chaudary was appointed the Military Governor for the State of Hyderabad. His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad invested the Military Governor with authority to administer the State by a Farman dated September 19, 1948. The Farman was in the following terms : 'Whereas the General Officer Commanding in Chief Southern Army has appointed Major General J. N. Chaudary, O.B.E., to be the Military Governor for the Hyderabad State and whereas all authority for the administration of the State now vests in him, I hereby enjoin all the subjects of the State to carry out such orders as he may deem fit to issue from time to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC889; (1960)62BOMLR893; [1960]3SCR319
Shah, J.1. At a trial held with the aid of a common jury in Case No. 38 of the Vth Session 1955 before the Additional Sessions Judge, City Court, Greater Bombay, the two appellants were convicted of offences under s. 409 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the first appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and the second appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years. In appeal, the High Court of Bombay reviewed the evidence, because in the view of the Court, the verdict of the jury was vitiated on account of a misdirection on a matter of substantial importance, but held that the conviction of the two appellants for the offence under s. 409 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was, on the evidence, not liable to be set aside. The High Court accordingly confirmed the conviction of the two appellants but reduced the sentence passed upon the first appellant to rigorous imprisonment for three years and the sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC910; (1960)62BOMLR663; [1960]39ITR202(SC); [1960]3SCR296
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This is an appeal with the special leave of this Court against the judgment and order dated February 16, 1955, of the High Court of Bombay in an Income-tax Reference under s. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The appellants are two assessees, Charandas Haridas and Chinubhai Haridas, whose cases are identical, and, in fact, there was a consolidated reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which was answered by the High Court by its judgment. The respondents are respectively the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat. The two appellants represented two units of Hindu undivided families. Charandas Haridas represented his wife, three sons and himself, and Chinubhai Haridas represented his wife, son and himself. In stating the facts relative to the two families, it will not be necessary to give them separately, because the question which was answered by the H...
Tag this Judgment!