Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2091; 1976LabIC1344; (1976)IILLJ316SC; (1976)3SCC522; [1977]1SCR80; 1976(8)LC712(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. These two are companion appeals by special leave. They have been heard together at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties, and will be disposed by a common judgment.2. Appeal No. 1951 of 1975 is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal Gujarat, dated September 24, 1975, in the dispute between the Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., Baroda, and its workmen, while appeal No. 631 of 1976 arises out of the Tribunal's award in the dispute between Jyoti Limited, Baroda, and its workmen. Speaking broadly, the dispute in both cases related to the workmen's demand for 10 days sick leave, with retrospective effect, and its accumulation over a period of three years i.e. upto 30 days. The workmen particularly felt aggrieved because by virtue of the first proviso to Section 49 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. they were not entitled to the sickness benefit for the first two days of sickness except in the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC196; (1977)79PLR98; (1976)3SCC715; [1977]1SCR96
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by the State of Punjab against the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, whereby it was directed that the Minister in-charge of Irrigation Department be impleaded as a party in the writ petition Filed by V.P. Duggal respondent. The Minister was also directed to file his affidavit. 2. In the writ petition filed by him, Duggal respondent challenged notification dated January 29, 1974 fixing the seniority of the engineers in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab Government. During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, an order was made by the High Court on November 18, 1974 that the Minister concerned might give a personal hearing to the parties and thereafter pass the necessary order in the matter. The Minister concerned thereafter heard the parties and made a speaking order on February 18, 1975 affirming the earlier seniority list. The writ petition was thereafter amended, and in the amended petition, Duggal respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2433; (1977)ILLJ5SC; (1976)3SCC677; [1977]1SCR87; 1976(1)SLJ539(SC); 1976(8)LC717(SC)
M. H. Beg, J.1. The Union of India and the Commander, Officer-in-Charge, Naval Base, Cochin, are the appellants before us by grant of special leave against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala. The Division Bench had affirmed the decision of a learned subordinate Judge awarding Rs. 25,000/- as damages, together with interest @ 6% per annum, to the plain tiff-respondent for the illegal termination of the respondent's services. The plaintiff-respondent was serving as a Welder, Grade II, in the Civilian Defence Forces at the Naval Base, Cochin, at the time of this allegedly illegal termination of service by an order of 25th October, 1968, of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence.2. Special leave was granted on condition that the appellants will bear the costs of the respondent in any event. The point of law sought to be canvassed before us is : Does the doctrine that a Central Govt. servant holds his post 'at the pleasure of the President', contained in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2095; (1977)0GLR100; (1976)3SCC719; [1977]1SCR71; 1976(8)LC706(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The only question that arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the order of acquisition passed by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 284J of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as applicable to Gujarat, is invalid and void for non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad (briefly the Corporation) by its resolution of December 15, 1966, authorised its Commissioner under Section 284I of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (briefly the Bombay Act) to provide housing accommodation for the poorer classes. In pursuance of this authority of the Corporation the Commissioner passed the impugned order of compulsory acquisition on October 9, 1967, under Section 284J of the Bombay Act in respect of 33,357 sq. yds. of land final plots Nos. 11 to 25 of Town Planning Scheme No. V of Dariapur, Kazipur Ward.3. Out of this area the land belonging to the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2428; 1976LabIC1546; (1977)ILLJ68SC; (1976)3SCC585; [1977]1SCR64; 1976(8)LC701(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated March 31, 1975, of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 405 of 1974 filed by the appellant challenging the recommendation made by a Selection Committee of the Lucknow University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') for appointment of respondent No. 8 as Professor of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts of the University.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are : Towards the end of the year 1973, the University put up an advertisement inviting applications from candidates possessing the following qualifications to fill up a vacant post of Professor of Anthropology :-Essential : First or high second class Master's degree and Doctorate in the subject concerned with a good academic record, experience of teaching postgraduate classes for not less than 7 years and/or having conducted and successfully guided research work for 7 years in recognised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(SC)383
Krishna Iyer, J. - This batch of cases between a State Government (Andhra Pradesh) and the Union Government suggests the need for litigative discipline for our Governments and a periodical post auditing in that behalf. And how we make good this inaugural observation by narrating briefly the necessary facts and examining closely the few points tersely presented by the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the common appellant in all these cases.2. Our Constitution mandates on the State welfare activism and contemplates its undertaking distribution of commodities essential to the life of the community at large through trade and business directly organised or in other suitable ways. Foodgrains and fertilisers are strategic items and the Union of India has, in fulfilment of high governmental functions, been procuring these vital goods and selling them to the States or their nominees so as to ensure equitable supplies and price discipline. Pursuant to this commendable programme the Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2322; (1976)3SCC598; [1977]1SCR59; [1976]38STC329(SC); 1976(8)LC698(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This batch of cases between a State Government (Andhra Pradesh) and the Union Government suggests the need for limitative discipline for our governments and a periodical post-auditing in that behalf. And now we make good this inaugural observation by narrating briefly the necessary facts and examining closely the few points tersely presented! by the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the common appellant in all these eases.2. Our Constitution mandates on the State welfare activism and contemplates its undertaking distribution of commodities essential to the life of the community at large through trade and business directly organised or in other suitable ways. Foodgrains and fertilisers are strategic items and the Union of India has, in fulfilment of high governmental functions, been procuring these vital good's and selling, them to the States or their nominees so as to ensure equitable supplies and price discipline. Pursuant to this commendable programme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2439; [1977(34)FLR9]; (1976)IILLJ405aSC; (1976)4SCC759; 1976(8)LC695(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by the Management of Voltas Limited. Bangalore, arises out of a reference made by the State of Mysore on November 25, 1965,. The reference was made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for an adjudication of some 16 demands of the workmen We are concerned in this appeal solely with the question relating to the fixation of ceiling on dearness allowance.2. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, made an award on October 16, 1967 fixing a ceiling on dearness allowance at Rs. 400/, In civil Appeal 1380 of 1968 filed by the workmen, this Court set aside the award and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on two questions: (1) Whether any ceiling on dearness allowance existed as regards the employees of the Bangalore branch of the company and (2) Whether such a ceiling can in law be fixed. The judgment of this Court which is dated December 21, 1972 is reported in 1973(1) Labour Law Journal 111,3. Pursuant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2130; (1977)1SCC567; [1977]1SCR49; 1976(8)LC688(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. On an election petition filed by Ratnakar Mohanty respondent, the election of Jugal Kishore Patnaik appellant to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from Bhadrak constituency was declared to be void by the Orissa High Court and as such set aside. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.2. Bhadrak assembly constituency is a single-member general constituency. During the general elections to the Orissa Legislative Assembly held in February 1974, the respondent filed four nomination papers for being elected from this constituency. At the time of scrutiny on January 30., 1974, objection was raised at the instance of Balaram Sahu, one of the contesting candidates, before the Returning Officer that the respondent was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Assembly as there subsisted contracts between him and the Government of Orissa for execution of certain works. The respondent, it was accordingly asserted, was disqualified u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2101; (1976)4SCC257; [1977]1SCR25; [1976]38STC593(SC); 1976(8)LC681(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 928 of 1975, M/s. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers, is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, (referred to hereinafter as the Company), and the six branches of the Company at Allahabad, Moradabad, Kanpur, Varanasi, Gorakhpur and Lucknow are the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 929 of 1975. The Company carries on business as coal agents and is registered under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with the Sales Tax Officer at Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh. We shall refer to these two statutes as the U.P. Act and the Central Act for the sake of brevity. The Company used to arrange supply of coal from collieries situate in West Bengal and Bihar to consumers in Uttar Pradesh. The collieries used to send the coal by rail and the railway receipts were prepared either in the name of the Company or in the name of the consumer in Uttar Pradesh on whose behalf the order for supply of coal was place...
Tag this Judgment!