Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1636; 1986LabIC1105; (1986)ILLJ7SC; 1986(1)SCALE1262; (1986)3SCC325; 1986(2)LC387(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 24, 1985 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the appellant's writ petition on the ground of laches.2. Having regard to the circumstances in which the writ petition was filed at the time when it was, the High Court, in our opinion, should have ignored the delay, and considered the matter on its merits.3. The appellant was appointed on June 29, 1965 to the post of Post-Graduate Teacher in Hindi in a Central Schools Unit under the Ministry of Education, Government of India. The Central Schools Unit was converted into an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education and was described now as the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. The appellant was appointed on probation for a period of one year. It stipulated that even after the probation was satisfactorily completed the services of the appellant could be terminated at any time without any reason being assigned on one month's notice or one month's pay and allowances in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1927; 1986(1)SCALE558; 1986Supp(1)SCC353; 1986(Supp)SCC348; 1986(2)LC448(SC)
ORDER1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution must fail because the question sought to be raised by the petitioners is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The matter is directly covered by the decisions of this Court in K.N. Oil Industries etc. v. Secretary to the Ministry of Forest, Bhopal and Ors. : AIR1986SC1927 . The operative part of the judgment of the High Court set out in this Court's order contained a direction to the effect:In the light of the discussion above, therefore, these petitions are disposed of with the direction that the allotment which has been maintained by this Court to the new units and the allotment made to the Mandla Unit at the rate of 10,000 tons per year, could not be altered at the concessional rate for 5 years from the beginning and the remaining sal seeds available every year could only be fairly distributed to all the old units on the basis of their capacity and there appears to be no justification for any concessional r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1621; 1986LabIC1064; (1986)IILLJ130SC; 1986(1)SCALE1231; 1986Supp(1)SCC171; [1986]2SCR1008
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Industrial Court dated February 8, 1985 arising out of an application under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Section 11 of the Act envisages that any Union which has for the whole of the period of six calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it so applies under this section a membership of not less than thirty per cent of the total number of employees employed in any undertaking may apply in the prescribed form to the Industrial Court for being registered as a recognised union of such undertaking. The appellant-Union moved an application before the Industrial Court for recognition of its union as a recognised union in respect of the first respondent, Bennet Coleman & Company Ltd. In the said application the appellant impleaded besides responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1564; 1986(1)SCALE989; (1986)3SCC62; 1986(2)LC498(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The Madras-Bangalore Transport Company, a partnership firm, became the tenant of the disputed premises in July 1962. In 1967, there appear to have been some disputes between the partners of the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company. The disputes were settled by arbitration. The partnership firm was split up into two firms, the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (West) and the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (East) The business of the old firm was also divided between the new firms area-wise. Under the arrangement each of the new firms was forbidden from carrying on operations in the territory allotted to the other. However, the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (East) appears to have ceased to function for practical purposes. Even so, the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (West) could not operate in the territory allotted to the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (East). So the partners of the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (West) founded a Limited compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1964; 1986(9)ECC282; 1986LC344(SC); 1986(25)ELT3(SC); 1986(1)SCALE1208; 1986(Supp)SCC263; [1986]2SCR1001; [1987]64STC139(SC); 1986(2)LC279(SC)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated November 5, 1970 on the strength of a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court. 2. The appellant is a firm carrying on business of 'Re-rolling' having its factory at Moosapet near Sanatnagar, Hyderabad. A contract was entered into between the appellant and the 5th respondent, whereby the appellant undertook to convert 3000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails into M.S. Rounds of different specifications by the process of Re-rolling. Accordingly, the quantity of 3000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails was supplied to the appellant by the 5th respondent during the period between 29.4.1964 to 23.2.1966 and the appellant duly executed the work and 'delivered the M.S. Rounds and received the Re-rolling charges in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The last delivery of the finished products was effected by the appellant on 23.2.1966. 3. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1322; 1986(1)SCALE907; (1986)2SCC706; 1986(2)LC445(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This writ petition raises a question as to whether voluntary organisations or social action groups engaged in the legal aid programme should be supported by the State Government and if so to what extent and under what conditions. There can be no doubt that if the legal aid programme is to succeed it must involve public participation. The State Government undoubtedly has an obligation under Article 39A of the Constitution which embodies a directive principle of State policy to set up a comprehensive and effective legal aid programme in order 1 to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equality. But we have no doubt that despite the sense of social commitment which animates many of our officers in the Administration, no legal aid programme can succeed in reaching the people if its operation remains confined in the hands of the Administration. It is absolutely essential that people should be involved in the legal aid programme ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC443; 1986(1)SCALE956; (1986)3SCC267; [1986]2SCR942; [1986]63STC192(SC); 1986(2)LC662(SC)
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present group of appeals directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated July 28, 1978 raises a common question of law. These appeals arise out of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the two Notifications dated January 25, 1975 issued under Section 14 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The petitioners also sought a Mandamus directing the State Government to grant remission in purchase tax of 0.51 paise per quintal to all the Sugar factories situated in the Stateof U.P. As the pattern of facts is similar in all the cases, we would refer to the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of Writ Petition No. 409 of 1975 filed by M/s. Shree Sitaram Sugar Company Limited, Bhailtapur, District Deoris, against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others to bring out the question for consideration in these appeals.2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company and owns a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC999; 1986LabIC859; (1986)IILLJ294SC; 1986(1)SCALE1272; 1986Supp(1)SCC179; 1986(2)LC579(SC)
S. Natarajan, J.1. Special leave has been granted for this appeal on the sole ground that a recent decision of the Bombay High Court in Textile Committee v. K.A Malani 1983 (1) S.L.R. 416, heavily relied on by the appellant to challenge the dismissal of Civil Writ Petition No. 690/85 filed by him before the Delhi High Court, required consideration as to its correctness.2. The limited facts which call for mention for the purposes of this appeal are as under.3. On February 11, 1981 the appellant was offered a temporary post of Chowkidar in the National Cooperative Development Corporation (Respondent No. 2 herein). The terms of the appointment were that the appointee would be on probation for a period of two years from the date of assuming charge of the post and the period of probation would be subject to extension at the discretion of the appointing authority and furthermore the appointment was liable to be terminated at any time without notice during the period of probation and thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1143; (1986)58CTR(SC)51; [1986]162ITR876(SC); 1986(1)SCALE978; 1986Supp(1)SCC266; [1986]2SCR951
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave is concerned with a question of some importance.2. The respondent, which maintains its accounts on the mercantile system, follows the calendar year as its accounting period. It had no gratuity scheme for the years proceeding the calendar year 1970, but such a scheme was formulated for the first time in the middle of 1970 and was nut into operation with effect from July 1, 1970. The scheme provided that in the case of the retirement or resignation of any employee he would be eligible to gratuity provided he had put in 15 years of continuous service. In the case of death or permanent physical or mental disablement, an employee was eligible for gratuity at different rates depending upon whether he had put in ten years of continuous service or more. In the case of termination of service or retrenchment, no gratuity was payable unto five years of continuous service, and was payable at rates thereafter depending upon whether the continuous servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC995; 1978LabIC964; (1986)IILLJ390SC; 1986(1)SCALE1282; (1986)3SCC454; [1986]2SCR957; 1986(2)SLJ265(SC); 1986(2)LC605(SC); 1986(2)WLN606
E.S. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave granted by this Court against the order dated 7th April, 1972 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jodhpur, in Special Appeal No. 74 of 1972. The High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur in the said appeal refused to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge of that High Court. The learned single judge had dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of termination of his services.2. The appellant was an employee of the Rajasthan Government and was appointed as returning officer to conduct Panchayat elections at Sardi in Panchayat Samiti Ladnun in the district of Nagpur held in the month of December, 1960. At that time, the appellant was working as Superintendent, Sheep & Wool, Nagpur. The election was to take place on 26th December, 1960 and the date for submission of nomination forms was 25th December, 1960. Four persons, namely, Shri Chaturbhuj, Shri Purna Ram, Shri Jiwan Ram and S...
Tag this Judgment!