Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(10)SCALE499; (2006)10SCC621; 2007(2)SLJ218(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Respondents herein at all material times were and still are working as Draughtsmen in the Ordnance Factory belonging to Union of India. The pay scale of the Draughtsmen employed in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) were revised on the basis of the report of the Third Pay Commission from 1.1.1973 in the following terms:(i) Draughtsman - I Rs. 425-700(ii) Draughtsman - II Rs. 330-560(iii) Draughtsman - III Rs. 260-430 2. They were not satisfied therewith as a result whereof dispute raised by them which was referred to a Board of Arbitration. By an award dated 20th June, 1980, the pay scales of Draughtsmen were revised as under:(i) Draughtsman - I Rs. 550-750(ii) Draughtsman - II Rs. 425-700(iii) Draughtsman - III Rs. 330-560 3. It was directed in the said award that the scale of pay would come into force with effect from 1.1.1973 but for computation of arrears the date of reckoning shall be 28/29th July, 1978. The pay scales of Draughtsmen of CPWD were revised. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR243]; JT2006(9)SC308; 2006(10)SCALE431; 2007(2)SLJ35(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of a settlement arrived at by and between the parties hereto falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 8.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 521 of 1992.3. Appellant herein is engaged in engineering activities. Respondent No. 1 is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. Appellant was a sick unit as envisaged under the Sick Industrial Company (Special Provision) Act, 1985. A settlement was arrived at on 11.5.1990 by and between the parties hereto in regard to the demands raised on behalf of the workmen. The period covered by the settlement was 1.01.1989 to 30.12.1992. The workmen thereafter went on strike. Several demands were also raised. A second settlement was arrived on 24.5.1993. In the preamble of the said settlement, it was stated:.The company has enforced lockout of its employees on and from 14.1.93 for the reasons mentioned in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC25; JT2006(9)SC297; 2007(1)KarLJ70; 2006(10)SCALE455; (2006)8SCC502
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. We would, however, take note of the factual matrix of the matter from Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4719 of 2006. Appellants herein were owners of agricultural lands. They were permitted to use the said lands for non-agricultural purposes in 2004. The lands are within the residential area and are put to use for residential purposes. An application for approval of building plans was filed before the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the Authority') on 29.11.2004. Some queries in regard thereto were raised by the Authority to which replies were also furnished. 4. Indisputably, the Authority is the Planning Authority within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (for short, 'the Act'). They have prepared a comprehensive developme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC199; [2006(111)FLR898]; [2007(3)JCR72(SC)]; 2006(10)SCALE362; (2006)10SCC572; 2007(2)SLJ1(SC)
H.K. Sema, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 7.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-bank was allowed by setting aside the order dated 28.4.2005 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.( C ) No. 6805 of 2002.3. We have heard the parties. The appellant was appointed by the respondent-bank as Officer Grade Scale-I. Thereafter, he was promoted to Officer Grade Scale-II, Scale-III and Scale-IV. At the relevant time, he was working as Chief Manager at Gurgaon branch of the respondent-bank. By an order dated 23.12.1995, the appellant was placed under suspension in contemplation of the drawing up of the disciplinary proceedings. By the memorandum dated 20th August, 1998 he was served with the charge memo on the ground that he has violated Regulation 3(1) of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1982 ( in short the Regulations, 1982). 4. The statemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR904]; JT2006(9)SC495; 2006(11)SCALE28; 2007(3)SLJ293(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Application of the 2nd proviso appended to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is in question in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th September, 2002 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 1996. The said question arises in the following circumstances:2. Appellant was appointed as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (for short, 'ASI') on 17.3.1980. He was put on probation. On completion of his period of probation, he was confirmed on 31.3.1989. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector on 29.10.1985. While he was discharging his duties in the said capacity, on a charge of grave misconduct that he had let off one smuggler, named, Lakhwinder Singh after accepting money, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was dismissed from services by an order dated 7.1.1988 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran. The matter was carried in appeal and the Appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(10)SCALE357; (2006)10SCC631
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant herein has been found guilty of commission of murder of one Baban alias Babdya along with one Sunil Maruti Avasare, Rakesh Tukaram Pawar, Jitendra Bappa Barawkar and Umesh Babanrao Khutwad who also took part in the assault, however, were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The first informant is one Ratnabai Shivaji Pawar, the mother of the deceased. She was a maid servant. Her husband was working in a quarry. The deceased was working as a fitter. Appellant herein is known to the family of the deceased. He is a friend of the accused No.1. He went to the house of the deceased and inquired his whereabouts. He was not there at that time. When the deceased came back to his house, his mother informed him thereabout to which he had allegedly disclosed that the accused No.3, Rakesh Tukaram Pawar had asked him to provide a bottle of bear. He had refused whereafter, he was slapped. An attempt was also made to assault him with a kn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(10)SCALE351; 2006(3)ShimLC337
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 31.01.2006 by which the appeal of the accused-appellant against his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Trial Court was upheld.Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in brief are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was employed as group 'D' staff, A/C and Power, Harbour Telephone Exchange, Chennai-1 and as such, he was a public servant. It is alleged that the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 1500/- on 9.11.1992 from Kumaresan (P.W.2), who is the cousin of Smt. Nagalakshmi at No. 38, Mosque street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, as illegal gratification for getting permanent telephone connection under OYT. The amount was demanded at 8.05 p.m. on 9.11.1992 in the house of Smt. Nagalakshmi and the appellant was caught red handed while demanding an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC628; AIR2007SC839; JT2006(9)SC454; 2006(11)SCALE15; (2006)8SCC613; 2007AIRSCW556
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Constitutional validity of Clause (g) of Entry IV of the First Schedule of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (for short 'the 1991 Act') as amended by Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Sanshodhan Adhiniyam 2004 read with Explanation (7) of the First Schedule thereof is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 28.06.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Appellants herein are holders of contract carriage permits. On allegations that they have been using then vehicles as stage carriage permits the vehicles were detained. They were asked to pay duty as it the vehicles were being plied without any permit.3. The Parliament enacted Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act') to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles in exercise of its legislature power under Entry 45. List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The said Act is a se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ30; 2007(1)KarLJ46; 2006(10)SCALE385; (2006)10SCC725
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the order of detention passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Hubli, Dharwad city, directing detention of one Shri Ramesh Madhusa Bhandage (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act'). The habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant who is brother-in-law of the detenu was dismissed by the High Court. 3. The order of detention was passed on 7.10.2005 under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and the detenu was taken into custody that very day. Subsequently, the detenu was furnished with the grounds of detention dated 7.10.2005 which were also supplied to him that very day. The Detaining Authority submitted a report t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR908]; JT2006(9)SC302; (2007)ILLJ236SC; 2006(10)SCALE417; (2006)8SCC508; 2007(2)SLJ59(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted. 2. The State of Rajasthan made a Scheme for supply of water in the villages known as 'Jal Pradyot Yojna'. The State was to contribute 50% of the total costs whereas the rest 50% was to be borne by the Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the Scheme, the Gram Panchayat of Indragarh employed several persons including Respondent No. 1 herein as a pump driver. He was initially appointed for a period of six months. The term of his appointment was extended from time to time. The total period during which Respondent No. 1 remained employed was from 19.9.1996 to 7.11.1997. The Scheme was to be completed upto 7.11.1997. As the Scheme came to an end, the services of Respondent No. 1 were terminated. He filed an application for his regularization of his services as a pump driver before the Labour Welfare and Conciliation Officer, Hanumagarh. In reply to the notice issued by the said authority, the Public Health & Engineering Department of the State inte...
Tag this Judgment!