Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2022; JT1988(3)SC579; 1989LabIC27; (1989)ILLJ250SC; 1988(2)SCALE580; (1988)4SCC212; [1988]Supp2SCR742; 1989(1)SLJ46(SC); 1988(2)LC655(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The short question in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant-workman was entitled to interest on the gratuity due to him under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972).2. Appellant joined service under Respondent No. 1 in April 1944 and was relieved from service on his resignation with effect from 24.5.1983. The employer did not determine the amount of gratuity payable to the appellant as required under Section 7(2) of the Act. On 7.6.1983, the appellant furnished an application in Form-1(sic) for payment of gratuity but no action was taken by the employer; then appellant approached the statutory controlling authority for determination of the amount of gratuity and requested that on the sum due interest may be paid. The employer contested the claim both in regard to gratuity as also interst. On 3.12.1984, the controlling authority determined the amount of gratuity at Rs. 16,380 and directed the Respondent No. 1 to pay the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1989(58)FLR141]; JT1989(1)SC18; (1994)IIILLJ253SC
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. In view of our decision in B.B. Rajwanshi v. State of U.P. and Ors. : (1988)IILLJ238SC , in which we have struck down Section 6(4) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the order made by the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh on June 28, 1977 returning the award made in Adjudication Cases No. 24 and 27 of 1973 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal (V) Uttar Pradesh, Meerut under Section 6(4) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reconsideration of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, quash it. Consequently, all the proceedings that have taken place before the Industrial Tribunal subsequent to June 28, 1977 culminating in the Award dated November 24, 1980 against which this appeal is filed are also liable to be set aside and, therefore, we quash them also.2. We direct the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to publish the Award dated April 16, 1977 passed in Adjudication Cases No. 24 and 27 of 1973 on the file of the Indust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2143; 1989CriLJ283; 1988(3)Crimes291(SC); 1988(18)ECC341; 1988(37)ELT163(SC); (1988)2GLR1436; JT1988(3)SC586; 1988(2)SCALE552; (1988)4SCC183; [1988]Supp2SCR747
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. We grant Special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The appeal arises from a Judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 20th July 1987 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 260/1987, 105/1987 and 444/1987. It raises a short but not very easy point for determination. The point relates to sentencing practice as to concurrent or consecutive sentences.3. The essential facts can be stated in summary form as follows:Appellant-Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmad Bhatti is a Pakistani national. On 15 April 1982, the gold 7000 tolas of foreign mark of the value of Rs. 1.4 crores was seized from his possession at Ahmedabad. Later he was arrested. On 23 September, a case was filed in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in CC No. 1674 of 1982. He was charged under Section 85(1)(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. He pleaded guilty to the charge. On 11 January, 1984 he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2073; JT1988(3)SC507; 1988(2)SCALE615; 1989Supp(1)SCC34; [1988]Supp2SCR772; 1989(1)LC82(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. This Writ Petition owes its origin to a dispute between different groups of employees of the Delhi High Court, claiming better rights of promotion for themselves, a type of dispute too common in services these days. The present Writ Petition has been filed by some Superintendents in the Delhi High Court objecting to their being treated on a par with the Private Secretaries to learned Judges and Court Masters and being included in a joint seniority list along with them, particularly as far as the promotion to the next higher post' of Assistant Registrar is concerned. In order to appreciate the controversy before us, it is necessary to keep in mind the background in which the dispute has originated.2. Prior to the Constitution of the Delhi High Court in 1966, there was a Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court sitting at Delhi. By Act 26 of 1966, Parliament established an independent High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi. By an order dated October 31, 1966, effectiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(3)SC684; 1988(2)SCALE605; (1988)4SCC260; [1988]Supp2SCR755; 1988(2)LC702(SC)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. After having heard learned Counsel on both sides, we grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself by this order, the point involved being a very short one.2. Real estate prices all over the country, and particularly in important capital cities, have spiralled up in the last few decades to such heights that disputes over land, which at one time could have been resolved by a little give and take between the parties have now assumed a magnitude which makes any type of reconciliation impossible. In this case, where the dispute arises out of a lease by a prominent charitable trust in Madras in favour of a well-established engineering company of all-India stature, we were somewhat hopeful that the parties would agree not to waste further time and energy in litigation but would come to some reasonable compromise. We tried our best by adjourning the case several times and encouraging the parties to come up with various proposals for compromise. Ultimatel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2141; JT1988(3)SC613; 1988(2)SCALE714; 1988Supp(1)SCC802; 1988(2)LC676(SC)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. Special Leave granted. The appeal is also disposed of after hearing both counsel as it involves a very short question.2. The appellant purchased certain land in village Barara, District Ambala, from one Smt. Diwan Devi by a registered sale deed on 23.8.1979. The respondent, the daughter of the vendor and a co-sharer with her in respect of the land in question filed a suit in the court of learned Sub-Judge, Ambala City for possession. She claimed that she was entitled to preemption in respect of the land in question. This claim of preemption was accepted by the learned Sub-Judge and this confirmed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge and the High Court.3. The contention of the petitioner in the Special Leave Petition is that the suit land, though originally rural immovable property has become non-agricultural urban immovable property by reason of a notification of the State Government dated 16.4.1981 and that the respondent is not entitled to rights of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2060; 1988(36)BLJR659; JT1988(3)SC630; 1989LabIC45; 1988(2)SCALE544; 1988Supp(1)SCC674; 1988(2)LC469(SC)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1.Vijay Kumar, appellant, is an IAS Officer in the cadre of the Maharashtra Government. In January 1986, the State Government of Maharashtra gave senior time scale to his juniors while denying the same to him. The appellant moved the High Court of Bombay for relief with writ petition No. 656 of 1986. Upon Constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition stood transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated January 19, 1987 dismissed the petition. Hence the appellant has preferred this appeal by obtaining special leave.2. Before the Tribunal, various and varied contentions were raised. The Tribunal has rejected all those contentions. It is, however, not necessary to consider the validity of all those conclusions of the Tribunal, since in our opinion, this appeal should succeed on a short point.3. The main grievance of appellant before the Tribunal was that the confidential report relied upon to deny senior time scale has not been c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2041; JT1988(3)SC505; 1988(2)SCALE564; (1989)1SCC147; 1988(2)LC414(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of substitution proceedings for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Prakash Bal in Arbitration proceedings pending before the High Court.2. Prakash Bal deceased made an application before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring certain disputes to Arbitration which had arisen between him and other partners in respect of business carried on by the partnership firm, named, Naaz Theatres. During the pendency of that application Prakash Bal died on 14-6-1972. Smt. Rajen Bal widow of Prakash Bal made an application before the Court on 16.6.1972 for bringing on record the legal representatives of Prakash Bal. In her application she stated that Prakash Bal had died leaving behind herself as widow, Rohit Bal minor son, and two married daughters Mrs. Anupam Pruthi and Mrs. Rupum Khattan as his heirs and legal representatives. She made a prayer for bringing the names of the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2115; 1988(36)BLJR661; (1988)90BOMLR588; JT1988(3)SC610; 1989LabIC35; (1989)IILLJ1SC; 1988(2)SCALE546; 1988Supp(1)SCC747; [1988]Supp2SCR679; 1989(1)SLJ160(SC); 198
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and some of its officers have filed this appeal by special leave against the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1982 passed in Appeal No. 709 of 1982 on the file of the High Court of Bombay affirming the Judgment dated 23.11.1982 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 579 of 1981 in which the learned Single Judge had issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Corporation to implement its Resolution No. 567 dated 12.9.1975 directing reservation of certain vacancies while making promotions from a lower cadre to a higher cadre for the employees of the Corporation belonging to certain sections of backward classes with effect from 23.5.1974.2. The Government of Maharashtra passed a resolution on 23.5.1974 providing for reservation for certain sections of backward classes at the stage of promotion in the services under the State. Under that resolution the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2187; (1989)1CompLJ105(SC); JT1988(3)SC787; 1988(2)SCALE1574; 1989Supp(1)SCC504; [1988]Supp2SCR690; 1988(2)LC680(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. On July 14, 1983, a letter received from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera, Dehradun, bearing the date July 2, 1983, was directed to be registered as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and notice was ordered to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Collector of Dehradun. Allegations of unauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt which adversely affected the ecology of the area and led to environmental disorder were made. Later on another application with similar allegations was directed to be tagged with the earlier one. That is how these two writ petitions were both in the registry of this Court in a very innocuous manner as public interest litigation. The number of parties inflated both under the orders of the Court and on application to be added. Apart from the Governments of the Union and of Uttar Pradesh, several governmental agencies and mining lessees appeared in the proceedings. What initially appeared to be two...
Tag this Judgment!