A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Waman Rao Vs. Union of India. Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961. The Agricultural Ceiling Acts, fall squarely within the terms of clause (a) of Article 31A(I). Those Acts provide for the extinguishment and modification of rights in an ”estate’”, the expression “estate” being defined by clause (2) (a) (iii) to mean “any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto . . …. “. It must follow, as a necessary corollary, that the. impugned Acts are entitled to the protection of Article 31A (l )(a) with the result that their provisions cannot be deemed, and therefore cannot be declared, to be void on the ground that they are inconsistent ‘with or tale away or bridge any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 or 31. 1981 (2) SCR 1
Western India Match Company Limited Vs Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. Constitution of India Art. 137. The length of the proceeding in the Supreme Court from 1971 to 1977 is the inevitable consequence of the backlog and is not blamable on either side. In such a situation the Court relies as not to prejudice either party bearing in mind the equities of the case. Directed to pay 50% of the pay. AIR 1978 SC 311: (1978) 1 SCC 154.
Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Vs. Fire Stone Tyre and Rubber Company. Industrial Disputes Act 1970- Sec. 25A – “ Lay-off compensation” The simple dictionary meaning according to the concise Oxford Dictionary of the term “lay-off’ is “period during which a workman is temporarily discharged”. Lay-off means the failure, refusal or inability of employer on account of contingencies mentioned in clause (kkk) of s. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to give employment to a workman whose name is borne on the Muster Rolls of his Industrial Establishment. It has’ been called a temporary discharge of the workmen or a temporary suspension of his contract of service.1976 (3) SCR 369
Workmen Concerned Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972 Ss. 9 and 17- Section 17 of Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act. 1972 is a special provision relating to workmen and their continuance in service notwithstanding the transfer from private ownership in the Central Government or Government Company. This is statutory protection for the workmen and is express, explicit and mandatory. 1978 (3) SCR 482
Workmen of Sudder Workshop of Jorehut Tea Company vs Management. Industrial Disputes Act, Sections 25F and 25G- The plea that the amount paid by way of retrenchment compensation envisaged in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, not having been computed as per the revised pay scales as per the Wage Board Award, fell short of what was legally due and hence there was non-compliance is not tenable because before the Tribunal this contention was neither pleaded nor proved·. Sec. 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act postulates that ordinarily the ‘last come, first go will be the methodology of retrenchment. Of course, it is not an inflexible rule and extraordinary situations may justify variations.1989 (3) SCR 966
Workmen of Tirumala Tirupati Dewasthanams Vs Management and Another. Payment of Bonus Act,1965. Section 32(5)- Offering transport services for pilgrims to come to Tirupathi from distant places. The Transport Department is operating under the Devasthanam and employs a large number of transport workers. Merely because it is an institution, the Transport Department does not case to be one established ‘Not for purposes of profit’. Remanded for adducing more evidence. AIR 1980 SC 604:(1980) 1 SCC 583
Xavier vs Canara Bank Ltd. Kerala HC – Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Sec. 51 – If the borrower has money now on which there are other pressing claims, it is violative of the spirit of Article 11 of the Covenant to arrest and confine him in jail so as to coerce him into payment. Equally meaningful is the import of Article 21 of the Constitution in the context of imprisonment for non-payment of debts. To be poor, in this land of Daridra Narayana, is no crime and to recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is too flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his willful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means and absence of more terribly pressing claims on his means such as medical bills to treat cancer or other grave illness. 1969 K.L.T. 927
Yusuf Rowthan vs Sowramma. Kerala HC. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939- Khulla – Act does not abrogate the grounds already available to a woman and Section 2 (ix) is clearly a statutory preservation of prior Islamic rights. AIR 1971 Kerala 261 : 1970 KLT 477: ILR 1971 (1) Kerala 154.