Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1397; [1973(26)FLR136]; 1973LabIC1113; (1973)IILLJ250SC; (1974)3SCC182
A.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment and award of the Ninth Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur, in connection with a reference made by the Government of West Bengal under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeal relates, In substance, to only one question as to whether the workmen of M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited, Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur are entitled to have the 10 holidays sanctioned by the Certified Standing order of the Company increased to 11 by the addition of the May Day as a compulsory national holiday. The order of reference made by the Government of West Bengal raised three issues in the following terms:(1) Whether the workmen had acquired the right through custom, usage etc. to enjoy the May Day, 1970 as a national holiday as defined in the Certified Standing Orders of the Company or as an additional paid holiday in excess of. the number of paid holidays prescribed by the said Standing Orders? (2) If not, whether a day's salary that ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2251; [1973(26)FLR444]; (1973)IILLJ254SC; (1974)3SCC216; 1973(1)SLJ1044(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta made in reference No. 124 of 1966.2. The facts may be shortly stated. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board is a body corporate, established under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and includes equal number of members representing the Government, the Dock Workers and the Employers of Dock Workers and Shipping Companies. Schemes had been framed under Section 4 of the said Act for representation of Dock Workers and Employer, with the object of ensuring greater regularity of employment and regulating the employment of Dock workers in a Port whether registered or not. The Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956 was notified on October 8, 1956 governing the terms and conditions of service of Registered Dock Workers. Another scheme called the Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1957 was notified on June 29, 1957...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2150; [1973]90ITR148(SC); (1974)3SCC142; [1974]1SCR122
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in a Reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). Therein the Tribunal referred partly at the instance of the Department and partly at the instance of the accountable person three questions of law said to arise from its order, for the decision of the High Court. The accountable person at whose instance the last question was referred informed the High Court that he does not desire to have any answer to that question: consequently the High Court did not answer that question. The High Court answered the first question in favour of the accountable person. In view of that answer, it thought it unnecessary to answer the second question. The only question calling for decision is question No. 1, which reads :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the whole of the Trust estate was to be included in the assessment or only a porti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1401; 1974(0)BLJR167; [1973(26)FLR454]; 1973LabIC1117; (1973)IILLJ153SC; (1974)3SCC154; 1973(5)LC730(SC)
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur.2. The appellant company owns and manages, interalia, seven collieries in the distinct of Dhanbad. In the year 1956 an All India Industrial Tribunal known as the Mazumdar Tribunal gave an award in respect of colliery disputes. In this award, commonly known as the 'Mazumdar Award' the wage structure was fixed interalia for the clerks employed in the various collieries including those belonging to the appellant company. The scales of salary under the said award were fixed as follows :-Grade III -Rs. 36.3.75 Grade II -Rs. 45.3.54.4.80 Grade I -Rs. 60.4.80.5.115. According to this award Bonus and Provident Fund Clerks were put in Grade II and Leave Clerks etc. in Grade III. The said scales were fixed by consent on the statements placed before the Tribunal by the Indian Mining Association and the then Principal Labour Federation. The appellant had fixed its own grades accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2155; [1973(27)FLR61]; 1973LabIC1158; (1973)IILLJ149SC; (1974)3SCC163; [1974]1SCR116
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this appeal, by special leave, the question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant has contravened Section 9-D of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), when at the request of the majority of the workmen the holiday for Diwali was changed from 11th November, 1966 to the next day. According to the usual practice, at the commencement of the year 1966, the appellant had published a list of holidays for that year. According to this list, the holiday for Kali Puja was stated to be on Friday, the 11th November, 1966. On November 5, 1966, the appellant notified that the factory will remain closed for Kali Puja on Friday, the 11th November, 1966. This notification was only on the basis of the list of holidays referred to earlier. The workmen in this company were represented by two unions (1) Amco Employees' Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association) and (2) Amco Sramik Sangha (hereinafter referred to as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1404; [1973(27)FLR84]; 1973LabIC1120; (1973)IILLJ248SC; (1974)3SCC70; [1974]1SCR113
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, rejecting an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, hereinafter called the 'Act', filed by the appellant seeking approval of an order of removal from service passed against the respondent.2. The facts may be shortly stated. The respondent was an employee of the appellant. Certain disciplinary proceedings were taken against the respondent who was working as conductor on charges which it is not necessary to mention, These charges were inquired into by the Disciplinary Officer of the appellant. That officer found the charges proved against the respondent and submitted his report to the competent authority i.e. Special Officer (Discipline). On May 18, 1967 the competent authority, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, recorded a note on the file expressing agreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer that the respondent be removed f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC635; 1975LabIC387; (1975)4SCC841; [1974]1SCR108
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, on certificate, by the State of Maharashtra is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated March 15, 1967, in Special Civil Application No. 1067 of 1964, quashing the order of the State Government dated January 18, 1964, making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.2. At the outset, it must be stated that the workmen who filed the Writ Petition in the High Court and got an order in their favour, have not appeared before us to support the order of the High Court. On behalf of the management, which was a party before the Tribunal and before the High Court, it has been represented that it is no longer interested in these proceedings.3. It is necessary to state a few facts leading upto the filing of the writ petition in the High Court. On December 19, 1962, the State Government referred certain disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The matters in disputes included various items; but it is only necessary to ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1403; 1973CriLJ1119; [1973(26)FLR423]; 1973LabIC1119; (1974)3SCC152; 1973(5)LC728(SC)
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an award made by the Labour Court at Bangalore.2. The appellant company was substituted as the appellant by an Order made by this Court on February 4, 1970 as it had taken over the business of the Bangalore woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'management' One a Ramachandran was working in the Roving section in the Carding Department of the Management's Mills. On 11th June 1956 he requested the Mill Manager for grant of leave of absence for 10 days from 12th June 1956 representing that he wanted the leave as he had to go to his native place to settle a land dispute with his brother-in-law. As all leave with wages and casual leave due to him had already been exhausted, the Mill Manager believing his representation, granted him special leave for 8 days without wages or dearness allowance from 12 the June, 1956.3. The decision taken by the Management was that Ramachandran had left the service, te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1406; (1973)2SCC189
D.G. Palekar, J.1. This appeal arises from an Order dated April 21, 1972 passed by the Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 9 of 1971 setting aside the election of the appellant at the instance of the respondent Mrs. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh.2. On January 21, 1971 the Election Commission of India issued a Notification calling on the 51 Khunti Parliamentary Scheduled Tribes Constituency of Ranchi to elect a Member of the Lok Sabha in the vacancy caused by the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in the month of December, 1970. The last date for filing nominations was 3-2-1971 and the date of scrutiny of nominations was 4-2-1971. Nearly fourteen persons filed their nominations two of them being the appellant, Mr. Horo, and the respondent, Mrs. Jaipal Singh. It appears one of the candidates objected to the nomination of Mrs. Jaipal Singh on the ground that she was not a member of a Scheduled Tribe. That objection was considered by the Returning Officer who upheld the objection and reflected he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1413; (1973)2SCC430
K.K. Mathew, J.1. Dharma, Puran and Bhagwani, children of Mana, Dhupa and his wife Phulpati, Molar Lambardar and Prita of Village Biholi and Badlu Lambardar of Village Gagsina were challenged by P. S. City Panipat under Sections 419, 420 and 468, I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat. He framed charges under Sections 467 and 419 against Phulpati and under Sections 467/419, read with Section 109. I.P.C. against all other accused, and committed all of them to the Court of Sessions.2. The case against them was as follows. Mana, the father of Dharma, Puran Bhagwani' and Chaukas, died leaving landed property. The sons and daughters became entitled to it in equal shares. Chaukas and Bhagwani were married to persons in villages Malo Majra and Gaguina respectively, but prior to the marriage of Chaukas, the sons and daughters of Maria had mortgaged some of their joint property with one Kidara. Dharma and Puran had contracted a loan from the Credit Co-operative Society of...
Tag this Judgment!