Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC651
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The respondent's service was terminated during the period of probation, apparently, because he was found unsuitable for the post. Respondent challenged the termination of his service before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the order of termination on the ground that the termination order itself did not disclose the reason for termination. Hence this appeal by special leave. 3. Admittedly, the rules permit termination of service during the period of probation on the ground of unsuitability. This fact has been stated to be the reason for termination of respondent's service in response to the notice issued to the State Government when the termination order was challenged before the Tribunal. It is, therefore, clear that the termination of respondent's service was in accordance with rules and the action was not arbitrary. There is no infirmity in the termination order to permit its quashing by the Tribunal. 4. Consequently the appeal is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2491; JT1993(5)SC80; (1994)ILLJ351SC; 1993(3)SCALE598; 1994Supp(1)SCC87
ORDER1. These are three writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, all filed on behalf of the workers employed in non-statutory recognised canteens. Writ Petition No. 16081 of 1984 is filed on behalf of the workers employed in the canteens of National Small Scale Industries Corporation [NSIC]. Writ Petition No. 16082 is filed on behalf of the workers in the canteens of the Food Corporation of India [FCI] and Writ Petition No. 11211 of 1985 is filed on behalf of the workers in the canteens of the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India [MMTC].2. In Writ Petition No. 16081 of 1984 which is filed on behalf of NSIC canteen workers, the relief claimed is that the canteen workers be treated on par with the Central Government employees and be granted the same status as that of civil servants with all the benefits and pay scales with effect from 1st October, 1979 or the pay scales mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition. The canteen workers in this petition have conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC656
K. Ramaswamy and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. The petitioner raises in this petition that he is a tenant and that merely because a decree of declaration of title and possession was given to the respondent, his rights as a tenant have not been lost and he is entitled to the relief under law. Unfortunately that was not the plea raised in the written statement nor argued before the trial court and the appellate court. Since the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, under these circumstances, we cannot go into this question for the first time in the SLP. It is open to the petitioner if it is permissible under law, to raise that plea before the appropriate forum for deciding that matter according to law. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2655; JT1993(5)SC96; 1994LabIC24; (1994)ILLJ12SC; 1993(3)SCALE596; (1993)4SCC361
1. The question raised in the present appeal is whether the employees of the contractor engaged by the respondent-Company to execute certain contract are covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] and whether contribution in respect of them is payable although the contract was completed much prior to the demand for such contribution made by the appellant-Corporation.2. Both the Insurance Court and the High Court have held against the Corporation on the ground that workers in respect of which the contribution is demanded were casual employees of the contractor and since the contract was over long ago, they are not identifiable.3. We are afraid that the ground given by both the Courts is not justifiable. Under the Act, it was the duty of the respondent-Company to get the necessary details of the workmen employed by the contractor at the commencement of the contract since the primary responsibility of payment of the contribution is on the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1070; 1994CriLJ1229; 1993(3)Crimes282(SC); JT1993(5)SC254; 1993(3)SCALE586; 1994Supp(1)SCC89
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. There are nine appellants. They alongwith three others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 324, 326, 324/149 and 326/149 I.P.C. The trial court acquitted A-11 and A-12 and convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 324 and 324/149 I.P.C and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for 18 months under Section 148 and 21 months on each of the other two counts. They were, however, acquitted of the murder charge. A-10 died during the trial. The State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 393/78 against all the 11 accused questioning their acquittal of the murder charge. The nine convicted accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1310/78. The High Court disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment and dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1310/78 filed by the accused but allowed Criminal Appeal No. 393/78 filed by the State against A-1 to A-9 and convicted all the nine accused under Sections 302/ 149 and 326/149 arid sentenced each of them to un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC51; 1995(50)ECC65; 1993LC369(SC); 1993(67)ELT449(SC); JT1993(5)SC82; 1993(3)SCALE581; 1993Supp(4)SCC484; [1993]Supp2SCR48
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') are engaged in the business of breaking or dismantling of old unserviceable ships. They carry on the said business at their ship breaking yard at along and Sachana in the State of Gujarat. Old ships/vessels are imported by Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd. (for short MSTC), a canalising agency for importing old and unserviceable ships and vessels for breaking. Ships and vessels are allotted to the ship breakers who are registered with MSTC. The petitioners are registered ship breakers who obtain the ships and vessels from MSTC. After dismantling/breaking the old vessels, the petitioners sell the metal scrap in open market. In 1985, the Central Excise authorities took the view that dismantling of breaking of old unserviceable ships constitutes 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)ILLJ874SC; (1994)6SCC548
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. These are appeals against the award dated February 5, 1993 made by the Third Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, West Bengal. Two questions arose for consideration before the Tribunal, viz., (1) whether the change effected by the appellant employer was in contravention of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the 'Act'); and (2) whether the employer was entitled to withdraw the medical benefits which were already given by it to the employees prior to the coming into force of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the 'ESI Act').2. On both questions, the Tribunal held against the appellant employer and hence the present appeals. To withdraw the said benefits, the employer served as many as four notices dated March 30,1964, June 19,1968, November 13,1975 and August 10, 1976. It is not disputed that none of the notices in question was in Form 'E' prescribed under Rule 34 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Nor is it disputed that none of them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1993]204ITR359(SC); 1994Supp(1)SCC575
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. Taken on board with the consent of counsel for both the parties.2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 269-H (occurring in Chapter XX-A) of the Income Tax Act.3. The appellant purchased a house at Bhopal under a registered sale deed dated February 13, 1973. The consideration recited in the deed was Rs 49,000. Proceedings were taken under Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act with respect to the said property. The Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department valued the house at Rs 85,600. Before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC), both the appellant and the transferor admitted that the consideration that really passed between them was in a sum of Rs 90,000. In view of this admission and also taking into consideration other material available before him, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ordered acquisition of the property by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(96)ELT509(SC); 1995Supp(4)SCC652
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment and orders of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin dated 29-3-1982 confiscating the goods concerned herein and at the same time providing an option to the appellant to redeem them on payment of the specified fine. It is necessary to state a few facts for a proper appreciation of the question arising herein. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of footwear. He says, he entered into a contract with a foreign supplier in the year 1979 for a supply of 28,500 dozen pairs of soles. According to him, the first consignment arrived at the port of Cochin when objection was raised by Customs Authorities that the goods imported by the petitioner were not soles but complete footwear. Accordingly, they confiscated the goods. The matter ultimately reached the Central Board of Customs and Excise by way of an appeal which was disposed of on 5-4-1980. The Central Board held that the goods i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC955; 1994CriLJ1204; JT1993(5)SC251; 1993(3)SCALE579; 1994Supp(1)SCC92
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 379 Cr. P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. The appellant Ballam Singh was tried alongwith his father Karhail Singh under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted both of them. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted Ballam Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of which to further undergo R.I. for one year. Since no significant role was attributed to Karnail Singh, his acquittal was, however, confirmed. Hence the present appeal by accused Ballam Singh.2. The deceased Ram Singh had four brothers. They owned agricultural lands in Villages Pilchhian, Mehmadki and Kalotha. About a year back they mortgaged their land situated in Village Kalotha for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!