Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962(5)FLR226]; (1963)ILLJ126SC; 1963MhLJ129(SC); [1963]3SCR514
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The respondent Bibawe made an application to the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay under s. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He alleged that he had been employed by the appellant M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines, Limited, as a watchman since July 21, 1958, and that he had been working as such watchman with the appellant and had become its permanent workman. On May 15, 1960, the Security Officer of the appellant Company initiated to him that he had been discharged from service with effect from that date. The respondent urged that at the time when this order of discharge was orally served on him, an industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its employees before an Industrial Tribunal and as such the respondent could not be discharged by the appellant without obtaining the approval of the Industrial Tribunal. In other words, his case was that his discharge was in contravention of the provisions of s. 33 and that is the basis of his application under s. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC64; [1963]3SCR523
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Patna High Court. Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. It appears that a new route Gopalganj-Pahlezghat was advertised by the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority in July 1957 and applications were invited for permanent stage carriage permits and the advertisement stated that there were two vacancies on the route. A number of persons applied for the two permits and in January 1958, the Regional Transport authority granted permits to the appellant and another person. This order was taken in appeal to the Appellate Authority, which however failed. Thereafter Sudhakar Sharma who is one of the respondents, before us, moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and in April 1960 the High Court quashed the order of the Appellate Authority on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Ram Gopal v. Anant Prasad [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 692. The case then went back to the Appellate Authority ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC458; [1963]3SCR479
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a dispute in respect of the election to the Panchayat of Byappanahalli, from its first constituency, in the State of Mysore. 2. The calendar of events for the said election was as follows : Notification of election ............ 6-2-1960Date by which candidateshad to file nomination papers ............ 16-3-1960Date of the scrutiny ofnomination papers ............. 18-3-1960Poll ............. 13-4-1960Declaration of result. ............. 14-4-1960 3. The appellant and five others filed their nomination papers within the prescribed date. The polling took place on the scheduled date, namely April 13, 1960. The candidates secured votes as mentioned under : Appellant ............ 169 votesRespondent 2 ............ 158 votesRespondent 1 ............. 128 votesRespondent 3 ............. 115 votesRespondent 4 .............. 38 votesRespondent 5 .............. 46 votes 4. The appellant and respondent 2 were duly declared elected to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC612; [1963]3SCR489
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The two appellants Jai Dev and Hari Singh along with four others Yudhbir Singh, Dhanpat Singh, Sajjan Singh and Parbhati were charged with having committed offences under s. 148 and Sections 302 and 326 both read with s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against them was that on September 14, 1960, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the area of Dhani Khord and that the common object of this unlawful assembly was to commit the offence of rioting while armed with deadly weapons and that in pursuance of the said common object the offence of rioting was committed. That is how the charge under s. 148 was framed. The prosecution further alleged that on the same day and at the same time and place, while the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly, they had another common object of committing the murders of Hukma, Jai Narain, Jai Dev, Amin Lal, Mst. Sagroli and Mst. Dil Kaur and that in pursuance of the said common object, the said person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC365; [1963]3SCR426
Wanchoo, J.1. These two petitions raise a question as to the validity and constitutionality of r. 31 framed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act No. 13 of 1955) as amended by Pepsu Act No. 15 of 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and will be dealt with together. The attack on the rule is practically similar in the two petitions and therefore we shall only give the facts in Petition No. 261 to understand the nature of the attack. The petitioners in Petition No. 261 are landowners in village Dhamo Majra, District Patiala, in the State of Punjab. They are running an agricultural farm on a mechanised scale and the area of the farm measures 421 acres. This area is a compact block of land and it is said that some part of the area is potentially of high productivity whereas other area is of inferior quality and less productive capacity by reason of the presence of alkaline patches of soil therein. The land was originally scrub jungle and was uneven and extensive rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1288; [1962(5)FLR190]; (1962)IILLJ216SC; [1963]3SCR453
Das Gupta, J.1. When under the Standing Orders of a Company the Company is empowered to take disciplinary action against an employee by proceeding in the prescribed manner can that power be legally delegated by the Company to any of its officers That is the principal question raised in this appeal. 2. The appellant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at 12, Mission Row, Calcutta. It is engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity at Jabalpur. The Company's office at Jabalpur is in charge of a Resident Engineer. By a power of attorney given by the appellant company on June 26, 1957, Mr. Leonard Shell Macleod, the Company's Resident Engineer at Jabalpur, was appointed 'the company's true and lawful attorney for and in the name of the Company to do exercise and perform all or any of the acts, matters, discretions and things' set out in 11 clauses. The 10th clause provided that 'subject to the Standing Orders from time to time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC295; [1962(5)FLR216]; (1962)IILLJ498bSC; [1963]3SCR461
Gajendragadkar, J.1. An industrial dispute between the appellant, the Management of RitzTheatre (Private) Ltd., and the respondents, its Workmen, from which thisappeal arises was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Delhiby the Delhi Administration on November 13, 1959. The dispute was in regard tothe termination of services of two of the appellant's employees, Jai Jai Ramand Mohd. Mia and the question referred for adjudication was whether the saidtwo workmen should be reinstated with full back wages and to what relief theywere entitled. 2. The appellant is a company which carries on the business of exhibitingcinema films in its theatre, the Ritz Cinema, and the two workmen had been itsemployees for several years past. It appears that in August, 1958, chargesheets were served on the two workmen. Against Jai Jai Ram, four charges wereframed. The first charge was that on 1st August, 1958, he along with Mohd. Miahad given a beating with slaps and fist blows while on dut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1141; (1963)65BOMLR285; [1962(5)FLR193]; (1962)IILLJ220SC; 1963MhLJ465(SC); [1963]3SCR405
Mudholkar, J.1. The judgment will govern C. As. 294 and 295 of 1961 which arise out of identical facts. The facts necessary for deciding these appeals may be stated thus : The first respondent in C.A. 294 of 1961 and the first 97 respondents in the other appeal were employees of the Express Newspapers Ltd., the appellants, at Bombay. On December 31, 1956, all the employees of the appellants went on strike because three demands which were made by them on the previous day were not granted by the appellants. On that day the appellants posted the following two notices addressed to the workmen who had struck work on their notice board : 'TO ALL WORKMEN WHO HAVE STRUCK WORK You have struck work in contravention of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. The undersigned takes a serious view of the uncalled for and unjustified strike. If you do not resume work immediately the management will be free to take such action as it deems fit in the matter.' 'TO ALL WORKMEN WHO HAVE STRUCK W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1788; [1963]3SCR412
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant was convicted under s. 411 of the Indian Penal Code by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Kurnool. Along with him, another person Hussain Saheb was also tried and was convicted under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The case for the prosecution briefly was that the house of Rahayya in Dudyia was burgied on the night of April 20, 1957. Ramayya and his wife were sleeping outside and on waking in the morning they found that the house had been burgled and valuable property stolen. The matter was reported to the police and during the course of investigation the police recovered 17 ornaments on the information given by the appellant. The other accused had also given information on the basis of which another stolen ornament was recovered. The Assistant Sessions Judge on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the other accused had actually commit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1908; 1963MhLJ321(SC); [1963]3SCR396
Shah, J.1. On May 1, 1962, we ordered after arguments were concluded that the appeal be allowed and the conviction of the appellant be set aside. We now proceed to record our reasons in support of the order. 2. The appellant, Ramesh Amin, and seven others were tried in the Court of Session, Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 366, 366A. Indian Penal Code, and abetment thereof. The appellant was the third accused at the trial. The Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 of the offences charged against them and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for each offence, and acquitted the rest. The High Court of Bombay entertained appeal of accused Nos. 1 to 4 (but not of accused No. 7) and set aside the order of conviction and sentence against them for the offences punishable under s. 366 read with s. 34 and s. 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, however, convicted the appellant of abetting the seventh accused in inducing a minor gi...
Tag this Judgment!