Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2035; [1975(31)FLR42]; 1975LabIC1490; (1975)IILLJ125SC; (1975)4SCC357; 1975(7)LC494(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra. Several items including the claim of 30 percent wage rise were referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal granted all the reliefs except with regard to two demands which were not pressed. The Tribunal granted 25 percent increase in wages. Hence this appeal. 2. Even according to the Tribunal the total additional financial burden of the company (appellant herein) in accordance with the award will come to Rs. 1,16,687.18. The company owns a press employing 150 workers. The State Government prescribed minimum wages with a special allowance under the Minimum Wages Act for press employees. It is not disputed before us that the company's wage scale is not lower than the prescribed minimum wages. The company pleaded before the Tribunal its inability to bear any more financial burden. The company produced the accounts and showed that it was incurring losses in seve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1604a; [1975(30)FLR391]; 1975LabIC1083; (1975)IILLJ117SC; (1975)4SCC348; [1975]SuppSCR443
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These two appeals, by special leave, arise out of an industrial dispute between the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and its workmen in regard to the payment of bonus for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Corporation raised three preliminary objections, one of which was-and that is the only preliminary objection with which we are concerned in the present appeals-that the establishment of the Corporation in which the workman were employed was newly set up since 5 June, 1967 and the workman were, therefore, by reason of Section 16 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, not entitled to payment of bonus for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The Industrial Tribunal by an award dated 2nd March, 1971 rejected these preliminary objections and held inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1443; (1975)2SCC131; [1975]SuppSCR473
M.H. Beg, J.1. The two writ Petitions before us under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by persons carrying on the business of silk worm cocoon rearing and reeling challenge the validity of various F amendments of the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Mysore Act 5 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal Act') by the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) (Amendment) Act, 1969 (hereinafter called as the 'Amending Act') The petitioners alleged that their fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution have been illegally interfered with by these amendments in so far as the amendments impose additional restrictions upon these rights without having secured the Presidential sanction required by the proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution.2. Article 304 of the Constitution reads as follows :304. Notwithstanding anything in Article 301 or Article 303, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)4SCC233; 1975(7)LC496(SC)
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer. J.1. We allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court for general scrutiny and recount of the ballot papers. However, the High Court will have to determine, inter alia, (i) whether the instrument which was used for making the 41 votes (referred to in the election petition) was supplied to the voters by the Presiding Officer or any other member of this Polling Staff. If on evidence adduced, the learned Judge finds this issue in the affirmative, the further questions to be considered would be, (ii) whether such supply would answer the legal requirement of 'instrument' supplied for the purpose' in Rule 56(2)(b). If both these Issues (i) and (ii) are answered in the positive, then and then only he may proceed to inspection and recount of these 41 votes mentioned in the petition. Similarly, after considering the legal questions indicated above, he may order recount of the 9 votes alleged to have counterfoils attached thereto. There appears to be no justi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1689; [1975(31)FLR31]; 1975LabIC1204; (1975)IILLJ174SC; (1975)2SCC761
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The appellant is a limited liability company carrying on business of running a cotton textile mill in Kanpur. The workmen employed by the appellant are affiliated to two unions, some to Lakshmi Rattan Mazdoor Panchayat and others to Lakshmi Rattan Shramik Union. We are concerned in this appeal with Lakshmi Rattan Mazdoor Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the Mazdoor Panchayat) as that is the union which has the majority membership of the workmen.2. It appears that there were disputes between the appellant and its workmen in regard to various industrial matters and these disputes were settled by an agreement dated 25th November, 1971 made between the appellant and the Mazdoor Panchayat and registered under Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act). Clause (2) of the Agreement provided that 'the Union will not give any notice for strike for one year from today's date'. There were other clauses in the Agreement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1436; (1976)1SCC602; [1975]SuppSCR428; 1975(7)LC475(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. These appeals raise the question of the validity of certain rules made under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954. The facts necessary for the decision of this case are as follows.2. Jaila Singh, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 1974 was allotted 50 bighas of 'uncommand land' in the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 in the Ganganagar District of the Rajasthan State. The area in which the land is situate was declared a Colony Area of the Rajasthan Canal Project under the Act in 1960. In 1967 the Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1967 were promulgated and applications were invited for allotment of land under those rules. Jaila Singh's application for allotment was disposed of on 27-12-1969 by allotting 14 bighas and 14 biswas of land on permanent basis. These 1967 Rules were the subject matter of certain writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court which ended with the decision of that Court in State v. Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1801; (1975)2SCC358; [1975]SuppSCR439; [1975]36STC188(SC); 1975(7)LC497(SC)
1. These twelve appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Madras High Court disposing of the writ petitions filed by the respondents in which they challenged certain orders of the assessing authority under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 proposing to redetermine the taxable turnover of the respondents by including the sale-price of foreign liquor which, it was alleged, had escaped assessment. The High Court directed the sales tax authorities hot to include in the assessable turnover the tax paid by the respondents under Section 21-A of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937. In these appeals, brought on certificate of fitness, the correctness of the High Court's decision is questioned by the sales tax authorities. The appeals have three different assessees as respondents and relate to different assessment years concerning each assessee, ranging from 1959-60 to 1964-65.2. The assessees are dealers in foreign liquor, among other goods. They have been assessed to sales tax as dealers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1778; [1975(30)FLR401]; (1975)IILLJ53SC; (1975)2SCC260; [1975]SuppSCR453
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The only question with which we are concerned in these appeals by special leave is: Should there be a ceiling on dearness allowance in this case 2. On May 11, 1966, the employers gave a notice of change for placing a ceiling on dearness allowance (for brevity D.A.) already in vogue at the figure of Rs. 325/-. Since this was not acceptable to the union, both sides agreed for a reference to the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra. By the impugned order of January 24, 1973, the Tribunal removed the ceiling and hence this appeal.3. There was also another demand with regard to the D.A. for drivers on the same basis as that for clerical staff. The Tribunal following this Court's decisions in Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceuticals Works v, Its Workmen : (1969)ILLJ751SC and Greaves Cotton and Co. and Ors. v. Their Workmen : (1964)ILLJ342SC allowed the union's claim for the two categories to be treated on equal footing. This Court held in the above decisions that employees getting the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC37; 1975LabIC581; (1975)IILLJ110SC; (1975)4SCC339; 1975(7)LC499(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland declaring that the termination of the services of the respondent, being violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution was illegal.2. The respondent, A.K. Deb, joined service as a Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Veterinary Department, Assam, on 1-4-1937. He was confirmed in that post on 28-8-1937. He was promoted as Upper Division Assistant and confirmed as such on 26 8-1943. He got further promotion as Head Assistant and was confirmed in that post with effect from 20-6-1946. Thereafter on 26-4-1947, he was appointed as Personal Assistant against a newly created temporary post in higher scale. He continued to work in that post till 18-8-1949 when he was reverted to the post of Head Assistant. On 8-11-1951, the Director of Veterinary Department drew up proceedings against the Respondent on certain charges. As a result, the Respondent was reverted to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1272; [1975(30)FLR383]; (1976)1SCC696; [1975]SuppSCR424; 1975(7)LC491(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The appellants is the widow of one Goverdhandass. The 1st respondent is her husband's brother. Goverdhandass and the 1st respondent are the sons of one Bhojraj. The appellant claimed 11 plots in Khata No. 97 as land in which she was entitled to be a joint tenant along with the 1st respondent. She also claimed certain other plots on the ground that they were acquired by Bhojraj and therefore it was joint Hindu family property and she was entitled to inherit those shares also as a co-tenant along with 1st respondent. She succeeded in respect of the 11 plots in Khata No. 97 but failed in respect of the other plots.2. The matter first came up before the Consolidation Officer and thereafter on appeal before the Settlement Officer and finally before the Deputy Director, Consolidation in revision. Against the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation she filed a petition before the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226. The High Court dismissed it in limine but gra...
Tag this Judgment!