Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ765SC; 1995Supp(1)SCC175
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. The appellant-union had filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the 'Act') complaining of the breach of Items 1(a), (b), 4(a), (f) and 6 of Schedule II and Items 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act. The case of the complainant-union was that the 21 workmen who were working in one of the canteens of the respondent-company, were not given the service conditions as were available to the other workmen of the company and there was also a threat of termination of their services. It is an admitted fact that these workmen were employed by a contractor who was given a contract to run the canteen in question. The com plaint, however, was filed on the footing that the workmen were the employees of the company and, therefore, the breach committed and the threats of retrenchments were cognizable by the Industrial Court under the said Act. Even in the complaint, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994CriLJ242; 1994Supp(3)SCC97
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred against an order of the Patna High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-accused, seeking to have the criminal proceedings launched against him quashed on the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial. The appellant was working as a Depot Manager under the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union at Sitamarhi, in the State of Bihar. On verification, it was found that fertiliser worth Rs. 1,15,000/-was short. The appellant was suspended pending enquiry into the allegations on 2-7-1977. In the year 1978, he was dismissed from service and the provident fund and gratuity due to him was also forfeited. Mr. A.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel, states that the said dismissal has become final and that in fact the appellant has crossed the age of superannuation even by the year 1989 when the present special leave petition was filed.2. Besides the disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings were also launched against the appellant under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC842; 1994Supp(2)SCC697; 1994SCC(Cri)1699; 1994(100)CriLJ947
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. This is an unfortunate case where the husband, wife and their minor daughter were tried for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The Sessions Court convicted all the three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 50 each, in default of payment of which to undergo one month's RI. The husband Harphool and the daughter Saroj were further convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo four months' RI. The wife Ankeri was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo four months' RI. All the three of them were further convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 I PC and sentenced to undergo two months' RI. All the three of them preferred an appeal to the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court having noticed that Saroj (daughter) was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. This is an unfortunate case where the husband, wife and their minor daughter were tried for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The Sessions Court convicted all the three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 50 each, in default of payment of which to undergo one month's RI. The husband Harphool and the daughter Saroj were further convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo four months' RI. The wife Ankeri was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo four months' RI. All the three of them were further convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo two months' RI. All the three of them preferred an appeal to the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court having noticed that Saroj (daughter) was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ637SC; 1995Supp(1)SCC223
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. In this case, the respondent-workman had raised an industrial dispute claiming the wages of Designer-Sprayman although he was initially engaged by the appellant-mills as a Spray man. The reference made by the State-Government read as follows:Whether the action of the employer in denying the wages of designer-sprayman to Shri Gayas Ahmed Khan, s/o. Shri Abdul Razak Khan working in shift general, Engraving Department is legal and justified? If not, what benefit/relief is the workman entitled and with what other details?2. The Labour Court recorded a finding that although the workman was engaged as a spray-man, he was actually doing the work of duplicating the designs and also as a tracer in addition to his work as spray man. The Court further found that the salary of a designer in the other departments of the appellant-mills was Rs. 740/-per month whereas that of the tracer was Rs. 850 and Rs. 620 per month depending upon the departments to which they were attached...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(3)Crimes399(SC); JT1993(5)SC174; 1993(3)SCALE663; 1994Supp(1)SCC551
K. Jayachandra Reddy,J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court confirming the convictions and sentences awarded by the trial court against the appellants. In the trial court as many as 13 accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 326 302/34 and 302/149 I.P.C. The trial court convicted all of them under Sections 148 and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for two years. Indradeo Rai, A-1, Doman Rai, A-9 and Raj Ballav Rai, A-10 were also convicted under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Upendra Rai, A-5 and Chandradip Rai, A-6 were also convicted under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and two years respectively. Basantlal Rai, A-11 and Anuplal Rai, A-13 were also convicted under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years on each count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal filed by them w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1583; II(1993)BC568(SC); 1994(1)BLJR662; JT1993(5)SC243; 1993(3)SCALE691; (1993)4SCC414; [1993]Supp2SCR225
ORDERYogeshwar Dayal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the appeal itself was heard and is being disposed of.3. This appeal has been filed by Satyanarain Bajoria & Another, judgment-debtor, against the order of the High Court dated 8th April, 1986 whereby the High Court dismissed Civil Revision No. 335 of 1986 filed by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 28th November, 1985 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Munger, who had accepted the appeal filed by the respondents/decree-holder against the order of the executing court dated 19th July, 1984 passed in Misc. Case No. 28 of 1978 under Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC whereby the trial court set aside the auction sale in Money Execution Case No. 19/55 of 1968.4. It appears that the judgment debtor was granted a loan of Rs. 4,000 and a decree for Rs. 8,256.05 ps. was passed against the judgment debtor in 1964. In November, 1964 the judgment-debtor deposited Rs. 8,000 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC202
Kuldip Singh,; M.M. Punchhi and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. The property which is the subject-matter of the appeal was owned by P.S. Kootapan Udayar who was adjudged as an insolvent by the sub-court, Devokottai. As a consequence the property came under the control of the Official Receiver. The appellant purchased the property in public auction-sale held on 18-12-1972 at the instance of the Official Receiver. The appellant took possession of the property and thereafter filed an application before the insolvency court for the release of the said property. By a summary order dated 8-12-1975, the insolvency court rejected the application so far as the property in dispute was concerned. The appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for setting aside the summary order. The trial court decreed the suit. The lower appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court. The High Court, however, reversed the concurrent findings reached by the courts below and dismissed the suit. This appeal by w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)ILLJ442SC
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. The respondent-company M/s. Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. runs two Units, a Heavy Chemical factory at Barabankey and a Distillery at Captainganj. At the relevant time, the distillery unit employed about 175 workmen (out of them according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, only 125 were regular workmen) and the chemical factory employed 251 workmen. There is no dispute that there is one balance-sheet for both the units though their profit and loss accounts are separate. There is also no dispute that the distillery unit at the relevant time produced between 50,000 and 55,000 Ltrs of rectified spirit daily and the entire product was transferred to the chemical factory to be used there as raw material for production of Acetic Acid and Ethyl Acetate.2. It appears that the respondent-company, while it was running the distillery unit, had in 1971 purchased the chemical factory in question which was then run in the name of Shankar Distillery and Chemical Works. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC565
S.R. Pandian and; Kuldip Singh, JJ.1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra challenging the correctness and legality of the order of the High Court of Bombay dated July 9, 1992 restraining the appellant from executing the order of detention alleged to have been passed against the respondent under the provisions of the National Security Act. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the period of detention fixed under the order was one year. Had the order been executed immediately after the passing of the said order, the period of the detention would have expired by this time. The question is whether this appeal deserves to be examined after a period of one and a half years since the passing of the order of detention. Under Section 3 of the National Security Act, the order of detention can be passed either by the Central Government or the State Government under two conditions, namely (1) that if either of the Government is satisfied with respect to any p...
Tag this Judgment!