Court : Punjab and Haryana
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. This order shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 5076 of 2012 and 5605 of 2013, raising identical question of law and facts. 2. The petitioners in CWP No. 5076 of 2012 were appointed as Clerks with the respondent - Bank in the year 1982. Pursuant to an FIR lodged in the year 1995 for the offences under Sections 420/120-B read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioners were convicted by the learned Special Judge on 27.05.1999. On the basis of such order of conviction, the petitioners were served with a show cause notice tentatively deciding to award the punishment of 'Dismissal from Service' in terms of para 19.6(a) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966. It is, thereafter, on 11.06.1999, an order of dismissal of service was passed against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 27.05.1999. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 22...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. On 3rd September, 1992, this Court condensed the issue raised in this writ petition while passing the following order:- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am convinced that the workman does not deserve anything more than the back wages upto 31.12.1988 as it has been proved and so held by the Labour Court that the workman was employed under World Bank Scheme for five years and after the Scheme is over there is no work available with the employer. The petitioner-Management is, however, directed to pay the arrears to the workman within two months from today." 2. It may be noted that on 20th July, 1992, the operation of the impugned award of the labour court was stayed ad interim. The interim order has continued to operate. 3. There is no effective rebuttal to the interim finding recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 3rd September, 1992. The Labour Court allowed the reference while accepting, as a point of fact, that the World Bank Scheme had come to almos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Hemant Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioners claim to be occupants of convenience places, viz, "booths" provided to Petition Writers, Stamp Vendors, Typists, Lawyers, Photostat Machine Operators, etc. as licence holders on monthly basis. 2. The stand of the petitioners is that they were working in the District Court Complex, Jalandhar since its inception in the year 2000. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are not working in the Judicial Courts Complex, but in the Administrative Complex and, therefore, are governed by the Old Kutchery Rules, 1937 (since repealed by Kutchery Compound Rules, 2003 for short "the Rules"). The stand of the petitioners is that there are two types of spaces provided under the Rules, such as, open spaces and also the shops. Further the stand of the petitioners is that they were provided 6'x8' space as licencees in lieu of the space occupied by them in the old court complex and that thereafter t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Ramendra Jain, J. 1.The accused has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 10.2.2012 holding him guilty under Section 302 and 376 IPC and order of sentence dated 11.2.2012 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under section 376 IPC and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. 2. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The facts, relevant for decision of the appeal, are that on 8.3.2006, on receipt of secret information about the admission of Saroj Rani daughter of Gurdeep Singh, resident of village Jassain, Police Station Haibowal, District Ludhiana in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana in a burnt condition vide ruqa Ex.PW11/C through ASI Satwinder Singh, Incharge of Police...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1.Petitioner has assailed order dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana in Civil Suit No. 120 dated 17.5.2012 titled as Ashu v. Poonam Gupta and others in which application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the order dated 02.07.2013 and for permitting the defendant to contest the suit on merits, has been dismissed. 2. Plaintiff moved an application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC seeking setting aside of ex parte order dated 02.07.2013 and for permitting the defendants/applicants to contest the suit on merits. 3. Applicant/petitioner alleged that on 02.07.2013 the defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 had received the summons issued by the trial Court and their counsel filed memo of appearance on behalf of appellants/defendants. The case was adjourned to 24.07.2013 for filing power of attorney as well as written statement. On 24.07.2013, the case was further adjourned to 12.08.2013 and thereafter again adjourned to 27.08.2013 for filing power of attorney an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Rajiv Narain Raina, J. The Forest Department was unable to produce even an iota of evidence to refute the claim of the respondent-workman against the illegal retrenchment effected on April 16, 2010 without complying with the pre-requisites of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act'). The petitioner had worked from January 5, 1998 to April 15, 2010 on daily wage basis with the petitioner. The service was continuous and uninterrupted and the principle of 240 days was eminently satisfied thereby conferring valuable industrial rights on the respondent 1 to protect his employment for it to be dealt with in accordance with law and the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. The management's witnesses admitted that there was violation of sub sections (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act which are two-fold parts of Section 25-F of the Act the breach of which renders the termination ab initio void. The Labour Court has found the termination illegal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. This writ petition has been filed against an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak on March 14, 2012 refusing to restore Ref. No. 41 of 2007 against an ex parte award dated March 21, 2009 declining the reference on the ground that despite several attempts to serve the workman at the address mentioned in the demand notice the workman failed to appear before the Labour Court and when the matter was fixed for conciliation before the Lok Adalat on the date fixed and all previous efforts to serve the workman had failed. Therefore, the Labour Court is not incorrect in assuming that either the party is not interested in pursuing the matter or the matter stands settled outside Court and industrial dispute no longer exists. Even assuming that the Labour Court ought to have posted the matter back on the regular Board on failure of the workman to appear at the special Lok Adalat even then he is unable to explain in this petition as to why he moved the application for rest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. Heard Ms. Gurjeet Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manu K.Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for caveator/R-5 on the validity of the transfer order (Annexure P-3) which is only a relevant extract produced in the paper-book. 2. Mr. Bhandari points out that ten officials belonging to the Jail Department have been transferred from one Jail to the other by the common administrative order. The transfer order has been passed towards efficient performance of service in the Jail Department and is evidently based on administrative exigencies and reasons which cannot be pried open by Court unless it smacks of mala fides. The impugned transfer order is dated June 30, 2015. On June 30, 2015 R-5 [caveator] was transferred by the same order to Sub Jail, Sri Muktsar Sahib. That is when CWP No. 15480 of 2015 was filed in this Court by one Kulwant Singh of the Jail Department wherein this Court passed an order on September 30, 2015 rendering the writ petition infructuous as the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. Bahal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption against Mokham Singh, husband of respondent No. 5, on 20.04.1965 in respect of the land measuring 63 Kanal 01 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of village Jhandakalan. A compromise was effected between the parties on 28.05.1965 by which Mokham Singh surrendered possession of land measuring 23 Kanal 10 Marlas, comprised in Killa Nos. 160/1 (1-18), 2 (7-19) and 3 (7-11) in favour of Bahal Singh in lieu of Rs.5,000/- and statement of both the parties to that effect was recorded by the Civil Court. The learned Civil Judge, Mansa decreed the suit of Bahal Singh in terms of the compromise to the extent of 23 Kanal 10 Marlas on 21.06.1965. The petitioners filed an application to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Sardulgarh on 21.12.2004 for sanctioning of mutation on the basis of decree dated 21.06.1965. The Halqa Patwari recorded the entry of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. This order will dispose of writ petitions bearing No. 5000 of 2012 and 11817 of 2013 as common questions of law and fact are involved in them which can conveniently be decided by a common order. The facts are taken from CWP No. 5000 of 2012 for convenience. 2. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Bhatinda in Reference No. 236 of 1997. The petitioner raised a dispute with respect to his termination while serving with the Punjab State Electricity Board, o/o Executive Engineer, Pole Pilot Factory, Sadiq Road, Muktsar (Vakil Chand, Contractor). In his demand notice dated April 15, 1998, the workman is non-committal as to who is the employer, whether direct or through contractor. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Bhatinda by the appropriate Government. There were 9 workmen disputing with the management. The validity of the termination order was put to trial...
Tag this Judgment!