Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991(61)FLR73]; JT1990(2)SC490; (1990)IILLJ70SC; 1990(1)SCALE878; (1990)3SCC682; [1990]3SCR111; 1990(2)LC293(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC2119
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. This analogous cluster of seventeen appeals by special leave, and a special leave petition involves a common question of law though they arise out of the following respective facts:C.A. Nos. 3241-3248 of 19812. These eight appeals by the Land Development and Reclamation Corporation. Chandigarh are from the Judgment and Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing its writ petitions challenging the Award dated 2.8.1980 of the Labour Court, Chandigarh holding that the respondents were entitled to reinstatement with back wages except Yaspal (C.A.No. 3242 of 1981) who was to get wages up to 10.10.1978, with benefits of continuity of service. The respondents were workmen under the management of the Corporation and their services were terminated on the ground that the Chairman had no power to appoint them. The Labour Court in its Award held that their services were terminated illegally without payment of retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1851; (1990)2CompLJ89(SC); JT1990(2)SC516; 1990(1)SCALE900; 1990Supp(1)SCC397; [1990]3SCR157
ORDER1. These are eleven appeals preferred by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC, for short) from a judgment and order, dated 30th July, 1983, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in a batch of writ petitions, since reported in 1983-24(2) Gujarat Law Reporter 1437. The appeals are pursuant to a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.2. The ONGC was initially a Department of the Government of India but, in view of its expanding activities in the search for strategic and vital materials like oil, petroleum and its products it was set up as a body corporate. It is now a statutory corporation constituted by and under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, (Central Act 43 of 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Act provides for the establishment of a Commission 'for the development of petroleum and petroleum products produced by it and for matters connected therewith'. Section 2(f) of the Act defines 'petroleum' as having the same meanin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)92BOMLR558; [1990(60)FLR898]; JT1990(2)SC339; 1990(1)KLT843(SC); (1990)IILLJ39SC; (1990)4SCC744; [1990]3SCR214; 1991(2)SLJ121(SC); 1990(2)LC424(SC); (1991)1UPLBEC283
P.B. Sawant, J.1. These are two appeals involving a common question of law, viz., whether an employer has a right to deduct wages unilaterally and without holding an enquiry for the period the employees go on strike or resort to go-slow. In CA No. 2581 of 1986 we are concerned with the case of a strike while in the other appeal, it is a case of a go-slow. By their very nature, the facts in the two appeals differ, though the principles of law involved and many of the authorities to be considered in both cases may be the same. For the sake of convenience, however, we propose to deal with each case separately to the extent of the distinction.Civil Appeal No. 2581 of 19862. The appellant in this case is a nationalised bank, and respondents 1 and 2 are its employees whereas respondents 3 and 4 are the Unions representing the employees of the Bank. It appears that some demands for wage-revision made by the employees of all the banks were pending at the relevant time, and in support of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(2)SC328; (1990)98PLR702; (1990)3SCC588
S. Rat navel Pandian, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat is or is not an 'interlocutory order' within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the CrPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The appellant which is a State Government undertaking registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is working under the administrative control of Haryana Government in Agricultural Department. The Secretary of the appellant-Company filed a criminal complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat against the second respondent under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 466-A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the second accused committed criminal breach of trust, misappropriated the stocks entrusted to him and defalcated the account books and stocks registers, etc. It seems that the complaint was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1322; (1990)2CompLJ141(SC); JT1990(2)SC369; (1990)3SCC560; [1990]2SCR1000; 1990(2)LC142(SC)
ORDER1. This is an instance of how a resourceful mind can find ingenious method to circumvent the law. The first respondent in this case is the Home Decorators & Finance (P) Ltd. of which the second respondent is the Managing Director. The appellant-Government collects entertainment tax under the Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') from the organisers of the entertainment-programmes whenever the entries to such programmes are charged. The entertainment tax is recovered at the rate of 36 per cent of the fee charged. In order to evade this tax, the respondents evolved a stratagem and organised two performances called 'Mahendar Kapoor Nite' in a local auditorium, namely, Manas Bhawan Hall Wright Town Jabalpur, on 7th and 8th July, 1974. Although the Articles and the Memorandum of Association of the 1st Respondent did not permit them to do so, with a view both to bring the said programmes within the scope of the Articles of Association ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991(61)FLR21]; JT1990(2)SC255; 1989(2)SCALE476; (1990)3SCC436; [1990]2SCR1006; 1990(2)LC139(SC)
1. We have heard Mr. Venugopal, Mr. Mukhoty and Mr. Dwivedi as also some of the parties appearing in person on the side of the petitioners and Mr. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General on behalf of Union of India and other respondents.2. As directed, the counter affidavit has been filed in one of these cases disclosing the stand of the Union of India. We gather from the averments in the affidavits and submissions made learned Addl. Solicitor General that the High Power Committee's report is not acceptable to the Union of India as such and the matter requires further examination at their level. We do not propose to indicate any view on merit at this stage.3. It is however, apparent that the report has been pending with the Government for a too longer time and the court is of the view that if Govt. intended to examine the report that could have been completed by now. In fact we have already indicated in our previous orders that representation made to the court when obtaining several ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(2)SC563; (1990)3SCC590; [1990]3SCR55; 1990(2)LC7(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated April 15, 1987 directing the State Government to consider the cases of Officers for promotion to the category of Additional Director of Medical and Health Services and equivalent posts on the basis of seniority including service in their lower cadre.2. The appointment in the A.P. Medical and Health Services is regulated by the statutory rules called 'The Special Rules for the A.P. Medical and Health Services, 1982' (called shortly as the 'Rules').3. All the respondents were originally recruited as Civil Assistant Surgeons upon selection by the State Public Service Commission. The minimum qualification for Civil Assistant Surgeon is MBBS. The post of Civil Assistant Surgeon is equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor. They are inter-transferable posts but a Post Graduate Degree is necessary for posting as Assistant Professor. The Civil Assistant Surgeon is al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1321; JT1990(2)SC330; (1990)3SCC617; [1990]3SCR20; 1990(2)LC145(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 4.3.1987 in W.P. No. 10292 of 1980 filed by the respondent No. 3, Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corporation, setting aside an award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 in respect of the compensation payable to the present appellants and directing to reopen the proceeding before the civil court on a reference under Section 18 of the Act, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appellants were the owners of the land in question. In a proceeding under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the appellants were held to be having surplus land, which by virtue of the provisions of the Act vested in the State Government. However, before the publication of the aforesaid declaration in the official gazette, steps for acquisition were taken for meeting the requirements of the respondent-Corporation. The appellants thus escaped the consequences of the declaration made under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1325; JT1990(2)SC445; 1990Supp(1)SCC175; [1990]3SCR64; 1990(2)LC12(SC); (1990)2UPLBEC957
ORDER1. Appellant No. 1 is a registered Housing Cooperative Society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, bearing registration No. 2130 dated 27.3.1973, hereafter referred to as 'the society', and appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are respectively the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Society. The object of the Society is to acquire lands for its members for constructing residential houses for them. The members are Central and State Government employees and public sector employees; and more than 70 acres of land situated in villages Chhalera Bangar and Suthari were acquired by the Society between January, 1973 and September, 1975.2. For development of certain areas in the State of U.P. into industrial and urban township and for matters connected therewith, the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, hereafter referred to as 'the Act', was enacted and thereafter the U.P. Government by a Notification dated 17.4.1976 declared the villages named in the schedule annexed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1692; JT1990(2)SC297; 1990(1)SCALE924; 1990Supp(1)SCC545; [1990]3SCR24
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 19th September, 1986.2. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was passed by the British Parliament. This Act came into force on and from 15th August, 1947, which was the appointed day and under the Act, as from the appointed day, two independent dominions were to be set up in place of the existing India known, respectively as 'India' and 'Pakistan'. Two independent dominions were set up in place of the existing Indian Union. Section 3(1) of the Act provided, inter alia, that as from the appointed day the Province of Bengal as constituted under the Government of India Act, 1935 shall cease to exist and in lieu thereof two new provinces known respectively as 'East Bengal' and 'West Bengal' shall be constituted under Section 3(3) of the Act. Under Section 3(3) of the Act, it was provided that the boundaries of the new province...
Tag this Judgment!