Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(88)FLR278]; (2000)IILLJ1417SC; (2001)9SCC667
S. Rajendra Babu and; Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.1. In this appeal the challenge is to the order of the High Court made by a Division Bench in a writ petition affirming an award made by an Industrial Tribunal on a reference made to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. That reference was made in the following terms:“Whether HUDA Engineering Workers' Union, Redg. No. B. 1455 is justified in demanding the following issues from the management of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA):1. Employees who have completed five years of service to be regularised and benefits accruing to such regulation (sic regularisation) be extended to such employees.2. The benefit of casual leave, festival holidays, labour holidays and other medical benefits be extended to the employees consequent to regularisation.3. Concession to the bus-pass to all the employees, irrespective of their length of service.4. Cycle allowance of Rs 25.00 be paid to all the employees irrespective of the categori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3548; [2000(87)FLR347]; JT2000(10)SC438; (2000)IILLJ1419SC; 2000(6)SCALE381; (2000)7SCC330; 2000(2)LC1417(SC); (2000)3UPLBEC2697
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Writ Petition (C) No. 617 of 1986 was filed on the allegation that the petitioners were continuing in employment for periods ranging from 10 to 20 years under different contractors and they are contract labourers. The contractors, though used to be changed, had to employ the workers of the predecessor contractors subject to the requirement of the job being a condition of the term of the contract and they were discharging jobs which are perennial in nature and identical to the jobs which are being done by the regular employees of the respondent. Therefore, it was urged that they were entitled to be paid the same wages as regular employees and ought to be treated similarly. It was only to defeat their claims and other labourers similarly situated that they were being designated as 'contract labourers'. These matters were examined by this Court at length and by an order made on May 12, 1994 the Court directed absorption in the employment of the respondent of la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)9SCC130
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. In this appeal, by special leave, against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in appeal from Appellate Decree No. 77 of 1966 dated 7-10-1977, the appellant is the tenant of the land in dispute. The respondents are the heirs of the original landlord (hereinafter referred to as “the landlord”). The land in dispute was leased out by the owners to one Netai Maity. It appears he raised structures thereon. After his death his son succeeded as the tenant. The said son died and his wife and son — Defendants 1 and 2 transferred the rights of tenancy inherited by them in favour of Defendant 3 under a registered sale deed of 5-4-1943. The successors-in-interest of the landlord — the respondents filed the suit for ejection of Defendants 1 to 3 from the land in dispute. The case went through several vicissitudes after the trial court decreed the suit. Ultimately the decree of the trial court was confirmed by the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2924; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)672; 2000CriLJ4055; 2000(71)ECC679; 2000(121)ELT3(SC); JT2000(10)SC405; 2000(6)SCALE377; (2000)7SCC601; [2000]Supp3SCR244
Rajendra Babu, J.1. Leave granted.2. Harinder Pal Singh Shergill, the husband of respondent No. 1, was arrested on 3-8-1998 by the Customs Authorities on the suspicion that he was in possession of foreign currency of 66217 US Dollars at Sahar International Airport, Mumbai and a statement made by him under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded. For seizure of the foreign currency a Panchanama was drawn. Then the said Shergill was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, on 4-8-1998 who remanded him to judicial custody till 10-8-1998. Thereafter, the said Shergill was granted bail on 14-8-1998 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. Subsequently, on 17-11-1998 application filed by the appellants for cancellation of the bail in respect of the said Shergill was dismissed. On the same date appellant No. 2 passed an order directing the detention of the said Shergill in the custody of the Central Prison, Nasik and the grounds accompanying the said orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000CriLJ4635; JT2000(10)SC506; 2000(6)SCALE371; (2000)7SCC632; [2000]Supp3SCR250; 2000(2)LC1406(SC)
R.P. Sethi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant, a truck driver was apprehended and arrested on 21st August, 1992 by a Preventive Party, on the Kota-Bundi Road in Rajasthan as he was shown to be carrying 96.600 kgs. of opium in his Truck No. PCT 9997. The opium was found concealed in three gunny bags containing 21 raxine bags. After compliance of the requisite legal formalities, a case under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was registered. The seizure goods and samples were kept in double lock malkhana. On conducting tests, the articles seized were found to be opium. On trial, the appellant was found guilty of the offences with which he was charged under the Act. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs or in default of the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of impr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2927; JT2000(10)SC520; 2000(6)SCALE364; (2000)7SCC379; [2000]Supp3SCR259; 2000(2)LC1411(SC)
S.N. Variava, J1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 15th December, 1992 by which the Second Appeal filed by the appellant (herein) has been dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:On 10th September, 1980 the appellant entered into-an Agreement to Sell, to respondent No. 1 her 1/2 share in 212K 13M of land at the rate of Rs. 30,250/-per killa. The Agreement to Sell provided that the Sale Deed was to be executed by 30th June, 1981. It also provided that by that date the appellant was to get her name muted into the record of rights and she was also to give possession of land to the 1st Respondent. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the appellant at time of execution of the agreement.3. Respondent No. 2 filed a suit against the Appellant and the 1st Respondent claiming ownership and possession of land Respondent No. 2 claimed ownership to the suit land under an alleged Will made in his favour by the mother of the appellant. In that suit an interim order was passed prevent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC167
Order 1. This writ petition by a retired government servant impugns, to put it in general terms, the manner in which the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) treats ailing pensioners. 2. The first specific challenge is aimed at an office memorandum dated 11-6-1997 on the subject of simplification of the procedure for referral to recognised hospitals. The two clauses which are assailed read thus: “(iii) In case of a medical emergency, the details of which shall be recorded in writing by the CMO in charge of the CGHS dispensary, the CMO concerned may directly (i.e. even before specialist's advice has been obtained) refer the CGHS beneficiary to a private recognised hospital for further management/treatment. (iv) The expenditure to be reimbursed by the parent department/office/CGHS Directorate, as the case may be, would be restricted to the package deal rates/rates approved by the Government from time to time. The expenditure in excess of the approved rates/package de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)IILLJ1415SC
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. A reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon the following dispute:Whether the demand of a union for reinstatement of 39 workmen (as per list enclosed) with full back wages by the Management of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad, is justified If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled and from what date 2. The Tribunal on consideration of the pleadings raised before it and the evidence led held that the concerned workmen were appointed by the DIG of CISF who is also Chief Security Officer of BCCL-appellant and that the workmen were paid the wages from the coffers of the appellant and, therefore, granted relief to the 39 workmen with full back wages. A writ petition was preferred against the said award which was dismissed and hence this appeal.3. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant contended that indeed 39 workmen in question were never appointed by the appellant but on the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(6)SCALE571
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, Doraiswamy Raju and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.1. We have heard Mr. F.S. Nariman, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, at length. It has been brought to our notice that in another case entitled Property Owners' Association and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra SLP (C) 5302/92 this Court in the order reported as : (1996)4SCC49 has referred that case to a Constitution Bench. In that case the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 was challenged and one of the contentions which was sought to be raised, which was the reason for the reference to the Constitution Bench, was whether Article 31C survived or not in view of the decision of this Court in Keshwanand Bharathi : AIR1973SC1461 . The present case relates to the validity of that part of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 insofar as it relates to the fixation of the standard rent specially in relation to the premises prior to 1.10.1987.2. In the present case also the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 95(2003)CLT778(SC); [2000(87)FLR712]; (2003)ILLJ204SC; (2002)9SCC690
S. Rajendra Babu and; Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.1. A reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon the following dispute:“Whether the demand of a union for reinstatement of 39 workmen (as per list enclosed) with full back wages by the management of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad, is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled and from what date?”2. The Tribunal on consideration of the pleadings raised before it and the evidence led, held that the workmen concerned were appointed by the DIG of CISF who is also the Chief Security Officer of appellant BCCL and that the workmen were paid the wages from the coffers of the appellant and, therefore, granted relief to the 39 workmen with full back wages. A writ petition was preferred against the said award which was dismissed and hence this appeal.3. Learned Additional Solicitor-General appearing for the appellant contended that indeed 39 workmen in question were never app...
Tag this Judgment!