Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC670; [1985(50)FLR442]; (1985)IILLJ4SC; 1985(1)SCALE344; (1985)2SCC136; [1985]2SCR1065; 1985(17)LC775(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Vacillation on the part of a public sector undertaking has pushed this trivial dispute to the Apex Court adding to the anxiety and misery on the part of lowest grade workmen and wasteful expenditure on futile litigation.2. Food Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short) was set up under an Act of Parliament being the Food Corporations Act, 1964 ('Act' for short) to provide, amongst other, for the establishment of Food Corporations for the purpose of trading in foodgrains and other foodstuffs and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. For performance of the functions statutorily prescribed under Section 13 of the Act namely, to undertake the purchase, storage, movement, transport, distribution and sale of foodgrains and other foodstuffs, the Corporation has to set up godowns/depots and other storage facilities and to engage labour for handling foodgrains at the godowns or in transit. The Corporation adopted different methods at different places for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC790; [1985(50)FLR426]; (1985)2GLR812; (1985)ILLJ506SC; 1985(1)SCALE337; (1985)2SCC68; [1985]2SCR1085; 1985(17)LC588(SC)
1. The question raised in this appeal concerns the vires of Chapter V-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The principal Act was enacted in 1948. Chapter V-A was inserted by Section 20 of Act No. 53 of 1951. The provisions of the Chapter, however; have ceased to have effect on and from July 1, 1973. That is the sequel to a notification issued under Section 73 of the Act. Chapter V-A is headed 'Transitory Provisions' and provides for the payment by the principal employer of a special contribution which shall be in lieu of the employer's contribution payable under Chapter IV in the case of factories or establishments situate in areas in which the provisions of both Chapters IV and V are in force. The special contribution is required to be such percentage, not exceeding five percent of the total wage bill of the employer, as the Central Government may specify. It is also provided that the employer's special contribution in the case of factories or establishments in areas in whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC709; (1985)87BOMLR298; 1985(1)SCALE360; (1985)2SCC279; [1985]2SCR1051; 1985(17)LC691(SC)
V.D.Tulzapurkar, J.1. The short question raised in this appeal is whether a pending appeal would be governed by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Act) upon the part II of the Act being made applicable to the area in which the suit premises were situate during its pendency2. The material facts giving rise to the question are these : By a registeredlease dated 3.6.1957 (Exb. 75) the respondents-plaintiffs gave a lease of an open plot admeasuring about 7,500 sq. ft. forming part of a non-agricultural land hearing Survey No. 70/4/1 situated in Village Kalwada in Valsad District, Gujarat Slate to the appellant-defendant for a period of 10 years for the purpose of running a flour mill after making necessary construction thereon at an yearly rent of Rs. 101/-. There was a clause for the renewal of the term but if it was not renewed the lessors were given the right to recover vacant possession on removal of construction at the expiry of the initia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC660; 1985(1)SCALE510; (1985)2SCC116; [1985]2SCR1028
ORDERNew Delhi, the 9th June, 1978.G.S.R. 800 - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), and in supersession of the Order of the Government of India in the late Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food) No. G.S.R. 316(E) dated the 20th June, 1972, the Central Government hereby directs that the powers conferred on it by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act to make orders to provide for. the matters specified in Cls; (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (ii) and (j) of Sub-section (2) thereof shall, in relation to foodstuffs be exercisable also by a State Government subject to the conditions (1) that such powers shall be exercised by a State Government subject to such directions, if any, as may be issued by the Central Government in this behalf; (2) that before making an order relating to any matter specified in the said Cls. (a), (c) or (f) or in regard to distribution or disposal of foodstuffs to places outside ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC860; [1985(50)FLR422]; (1985)ILLJ519SC; 1985(1)SCALE322; (1985)2SCC103; [1985]2SCR1019; 1985(1)SLJ666(SC); 1985(17)LC698(SC)
V.Khalid, J.1 This is an appeal, by special leave, against the Judgment dated 8th August, 1980, by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 127 of 1972.2. The appellant is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. It represents employees in the Chambal Hydel Irrigation Scheme under the Department of Chambal Project of Government of Madhya Pradesh in Gwalior Division. The Union raised three demands and served notices of these demands on the Deputy Chief Engineer, Major project, Chambal, Bhopal. The demands were : (1) Chambal allowance; (2) Dearness allowance equal to that of the Central Government employees; and (3) Wages for the period of strike lasting 20 days in the year 1966. Copies of these notices were sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Indore and the Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Deputy Chief Engineer did not respond to the demands. Thereupon, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior, at the instance of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC756; 1985(1)SCALE294; (1985)2SCC112; [1985]2SCR1008; 1985(17)LC688(SC)
D.A.Desai, J.1.The respondents in these two appeals filed Original Petitions Nos. 2892-3073 of 1965 challenging the validity of the licence fee levied by the appellant 'The City Corporation of Calicut' to be paid for use of the land or premises for soaking of coconut husks. The appellant Corporation by its resolution dated January 25, 1963 levied licence fees in respect of various items set out in Schedule IV of the Calicut City Municipal Act, 1961 subsequently restyled as Kerala Municipal Corporation, Act 1964 ('Corporation Act' for short) including for use of premises and land for soaking coconut husks. The respondents are admittedly carrying on the trade of soaking coconut husks and they had not taken out a licence for carrying on the trade. The Commissioner of the appellant Corporation issued a notice to each of the respondents calling upon him to show cause why within three days of the receipt of the notice, the respondents should not be prosecuted for using premises for soaking c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC722; [1985(50)FLR456]; (1985)ILLJ373SC; 1985(1)SCALE297; (1985)3SCC116; [1985]2SCR1014; 1985(1)SLJ318(SC); 1985(17)LC671(SC)
1. Special leave granted.2. The West Bengal State Electricity Board is the principal appellant in this appeal by special leave which we have just now granted. The first respondent, a permanent employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board, filed the writ petition out of which the appeal arises in the Calcutta High Court to quash an order dated March 22, 1984 of the Secretary, West Bengal State Electricity Board terminating his services as Deputy Secretary with immediate effect on payment of three month's salary in lieu of three month's notice. The order gave no reasons for terminating the services of the respondent and there was nothing in the order which could possibly be said to attach any stigma to the respondent. Apparently the order was made under Regulation 34 of the Board's Regulations which enables the Board to terminate the services of any permanent employee 'by serving three months' notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu thereof.' The High C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986(8)ECC63; 1986(23)ELT8(SC); 1985(2)SCALE1379; (1986)1SCC125; [1985]Supp1SCR954
1. This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh upholding a notice issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore demanding a sum of Rs. 6,96,177.09 representing the amount of differential duty in respect of Mopeds manufactured by the Appellants and cleared from their Factory during the period from 1st October 1975 upto 30 April 1979. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows :2. The Appellants manufacture Mopeds under the brand names of Suvega Standard, Suvega Deluxe and Suvega Samrat These Mopeds manufactured by the Appellants are liable to excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellants have 179 dealers all over the country to whom 98% of the Mopeds manufactured by them are sold. Not more than 2% of the Mopeds are delivered at the Factory gate; the bulk of the mopeds representing about 80% of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC753; [1985(51)FLR231]; 1985LabIC887; 1985(1)SCALE332; 1985Supp(1)SCC31; 1985(1)SLJ405(SC); 1985(17)LC603(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The Nellikuppam Sugar Factory, one of the Factories run by E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., was founded in 1845 and has been manufacturing sugar, candy and other sugar based products. The crushing capacity of the sugar factory was 2200 tons of cane per day up to 1969. In February that year the Company decided to increase the said capacity to 2800 tons and that capacity was again further increased to 4000 tons a day in 1977. Disputes arose as to the labour strength in the sugar unit and two associate manufactories-being a distillery and a CO2 unit-as also the cane offices ('hereinafter referred to as 'Factory'), and by an Award dated December 23, 1977, such strength was determined at 1,700 regular workmen and 100 casual labourers. In January 1978, there was a bipartite settlement accepting the figures given in the Award and that settlement remained operative till almost the end of 1981. In December that year, the Union raised a charters of demands mainly focussed upon wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC760; 1985(1)Crimes515(SC); [1985(50)FLR467]; 1986LabIC411; (1985)IILLJ14SC; 1985(1)SCALE289; (1985)2SCC363; [1985]2SCR998
S.Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. By our Order dated February 12, 1985 we disposed of the above-mentioned two criminal appeals-dismissed criminal No. 661/82 and allowed criminal appeal No. 240 of 1982. We now proceed to give the reasons for our Order.2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass The appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant-company contending that the respondent was not entitled in law to get full compensation for one year as was granted by the High Court for premature termination of his services. The detailed facts have been given by the High Court and the criminal court and it is not necessary to repeat the same.3. However, in order to understand the delicate and difficult points raised by the respondent, it may be necessary to give a short history of the circumstances in which the services of the respondent, who was Master of the ship called 'M.V. Anastasis', were terminated. It is common ground that the respondent was appointed on October 22, 1980...
Tag this Judgment!