Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC95
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Various committees and commissions appointed by the Government of India from time to time that have considered the question of educational reforms, have underlined the need for vocationalisation of education at the secondary level. A centrally-sponsored scheme was launched by the Government of India in 1977 to promote vocationalisation. The scheme was, however, discontinued in April 1979. Some of the State Governments adopted the scheme and continued the programme on their own. In pursuance of the priorities accorded in the National Policy on Education (1986) another centrally-sponsored scheme of vocationalisation of secondary education was started by the Government of India with effect from February 1988. The main objectives of the scheme are to provide diversification of educational opportunities so as to enhance individual employability, reduce the mismatch between the demand and supply of skilled manpower and to provide an alternative for those...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC131; JT1991(4)SC274; (1992)1MLJ26(SC); 1991(2)SCALE921; (1992)1SCC114; [1991]Supp2SCR115
ORDERKania, J.1. This is an appeal by Special Leave from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 577 of 1985 filed in that Court.2. Very few facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal.3. The appellant is the owner of a plot comprising roughly 2 acres of land in Ramavarappadu village, Vijayawada Taluk, in the Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to acquire about 1 acre and 89 cents out of the aforesaid land for a public purpose. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was published in the Government Gazette on February 9, 1976. The substance of the said notification was published in the locality where the land proposed to be acquired is situated, on April 2, 1978, long after the period of 40 days within which it was required to be published as per the provisions of Section 4(1) of the said Act as amended by the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC392; JT1991(4)SC468; 1992LabIC72; (1992)ILLJ322SC; 1991(2)SCALE1139; (1992)1SCC286; [1991]Supp2SCR146; 1992(1)SLJ72(SC); (1992)1UPLBEC487
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Leave granted.2. When we are moving forward to achieve the constitutional guarantee of equal rights for women the life Insurance Corporation of India seems to be not moving beyond the status quo. The case on hand illustrates this typical attitude of the Corporation.3. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('the Corporation'). She was called for written test and also for interview. She was successful in both the tests. She was asked to fill a declaration form which she did and submitted to the Corporation on 25 May 1989. On the same day, she was also examined by a lady doctor and found medically fit for the job. The Doctor who examined the petitioner was in the approved panel of the Corporation.4. The petitioner was directed to undergo a short-term training programme. After successful completion of the training she was given an appointment letter dated 25 September 1989. She was appointed as Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC92
K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent was compulsorily retired from service on February 3, 1990. The High Court has set aside that compulsory retirement on two grounds, namely: (1) that three months' salary in lieu of notice has not been paid simultaneously along with the order of compulsory retirement, and (2) in the Screening Committee which considered the case of the respondent the participation of Shri R.P. Goyal who had given an adverse entry in one year against the respondent has vitiated the order of compulsory retirement.3. The High Court seems to be too technical. Three months salary in lieu of notice was sent by cheque to the respondent. The cheque was sent on April 5, 1990. There is no reason to disbelieve this fact. In the affidavit on behalf of the government it has been stated that the cheque was sent to the respondent but it was returned. It is not in dispute that the cheque was drawn, and there is no reason why i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC504; [1991(63)FLR928]; JT1991(4)SC243; 1992LabIC289; (1992)ILLJ340SC; (1992)2MLJ16(SC); 1991(2)SCALE940; (1992)1SCC290; [1991]Supp2SCR129; 1992(1)SLJ34(SC); 1992(1
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the 'Company') is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical and dietetic speciality products and is having three units, two at Bombay and one at Madras. The Madras factory, with which we are concerned, was set-up in the year 1959. The Company on its own provided slab system of Dearness Allowance (DA) which means the DA paid to the workmen was linked to cost of living index as well as the basic wage. The said double-linked DA Scheme was included in various settlements between the Company and the workmen and remained operative for about thirty years. The question for our consideration is whether the Company is entitled to re-structure the DA scheme by abolishing the slab system and substituting the same by the Scheme-prejudicial to the workmen-on the ground that the slab system has resulted in over-neutralisation thereby landing the workmen in the high-wage island.3. The first settlement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC207; JT1991(4)SC199; (1992)101PLR49; (1992)1SCC319; [1991]Supp2SCR119; 1992(1)LC445(SC)
ORDERAhmadi, J.1. Delay condoned. Special leave granted.2. The constitutional validity of Section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 was challenged on the ground that it offended the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) in Ram Sarup v. Munshi and Ors. : [1963]3SCR858 A Constitution Bench of this Court upheld the validity holding that there was no infringement of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Thereafter, a host of writ petitions were filed in this Court tinder Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 15 on the ground that it infringed Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It may be mentioned that the mother State, the State of Punjab, had repealed the Act in 1973 but it continued to be in force in the State of Haryana which prior to 1966 was a part of the State of Punjab. Section 15 of the 1913 Act, as it originally stood, underwent substantial changes in 1960 and as amended read as under :15. Persons in whom right ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC188; 1992(1)ARBLR1(SC); 1991LC577(SC); JT1991(4)SC254; 1991(2)SCALE937; (1992)1SCC56; 1992(1)LC319(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Special leave granted.2.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. This appeal is directed against the order dated December 21, 1990 passed by the High Court of Calcutta whereby the application filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for revoking the authority of the arbitrator and alternatively for his removal was allowed and Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sen, retired Chief Justice of the said High Court who had been appointed as the sole arbitrator under order of the High Court dated February 20, 1987 was relieved of his charge and Mr. Justice Shambu Chandra Ghosh, retired Chief Justice of the said High Court was appointed as the sole arbitrator in place and stead of the learned out-going arbitrator.4. The parties to this appeal are descendants of a common ancestor, Certain disputes arose amongst them which gave rise to two suits; Title Partition and Administration Suit No. 37 of 1975 filed by Gouri Shankar Lohia, Durg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(1)SCC29
S.R. Pandian and; M. Fathima Beevi, JJ.1. These appeals are preferred by the appellant, Shinghara Singh against the judgments made in Criminal Appeal Nos. 19(DB) of 1980 and 20(DB) of 1980 on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The facts of the case which led to the filing of these two appeals can be summarised as follows:Before the trial court, this appellant along with 8 others took his trial under seven charges on the allegations that on April 20, 1979 he along with other accused formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object of such assembly, he caused the death of the deceased Dharam Singh and also accused caused injuries to several witnesses.2. According to the prosecution, the deceased Dharam Singh along with PW 14 (Harnam Singh), PW 10, (Anoop Singh) and PW 8 (Sarup Singh) was in possession of four killas of panchayat land which was the scene of occurrence. Accused 9 before the trial court, namely, Gurdit Singh and the rest of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC710; 1992LabIC499; 1992Supp(3)SCC82
1. The appellant was an employee in the Industrial Finance Corporation of India. When he crossed 50 and before reaching 55, he was compulsorily retired from service in exercise of the powers in Regulation 33(1) of the Staff Regulations of the Industrial Finance Corporation of India. The case of the appellant is that Regulation 33(1) could be invoked subject to Explanation III to the Regulations. This contention was not accepted by the High Court and hence this appeal. For immediate reference the Regulation 33(1) and the Explanation III are set out hereunder :33 Superannuation and Retirement.(i) An employee, other than an employee in Class IV, shall retire on completion of fifty-eight (58) years of age, whereas an employee in Class IV, shall retire when he attains the age of 60 years. The Corporation shall, however, have absolute right to retire an employee, if it considers necessary to do so in the interest of the corporation, by giving him notice of not less than three months in writi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC120
A.M. Ahmadi and; M.M. Punchhi, JJ.1. All the learned counsel appearing in the Death Reference No. 1 of 1989 and appeal are agreed that the hearing will need at least three working weeks and, therefore, it would be desirable to commence the hearing from November 12, 1991 so that these cases could be heard without break. Counsel state that in the meantime the statements regarding the evidence, etc. will also be made. We, therefore, accede to this request and direct that these matters be taken up for hearing from November 12, 1991 onwards.2. Mr Nimbalkar, who is appointed amicus curiae to assist this Court insofar as the charges against the accused are concerned, states that he is facing problem regarding accommodation since he comes from Pune. Counsel for the State of Maharashtra is requested to arrange for his accommodation in Maharashtra Sadan on the dates these matters are heard by this Court. We do hope that such arrangements will be made and he will be accommodated in Maharashtra Sa...
Tag this Judgment!