Indeed, as the judgment of Balakrishna lyer,points out in the case of Mettur Industries Ltd. Varma and the answer to this question would naturally depend upon the conclusion which the tribunal may reach on the merits of the first issue. As there was no evidence, in the instant case, to show that Henderson was an officer as contemplated by S. The Committee examined the role of the Government and the goals before the government and recorded as follows: The Committee consisted of technical experts from different institutions, the Ministry of Defence etc.

20 of Annexure to exhibit P78 which provides for steps to be taken by Madhya Bharat Government to hand over the land; By virtue of Section 158(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, the father of the plaintiff by holding the land, became a bhumiswami, and as such, entitled for the benefits under Section 158(2) of the Act; the Rulers who prior to their integration of their States with the Dominion of India were sovereign and after integration have become citizens of India, and their rights and obligations as citizens of India are recognized by the Constitution of India; after 1st July, 1949, even the State cannot raise the dispute, and mere executive order cannot be sustained unless it is supported by some authority of law; the Suit is not barred under Article 363 of the Constitution of India because it is based on the pre-existing right of the plaintiff and not based on the rights flowing from the Covenant.

The Committee submitted its report on 13. it is open to the employees to raise a disputeand ask that the standing orders be amended. The learned Judge, by judgement decree dated 13th August, 2010 set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the Suit, by recording findings to the effect that on the date of merger, the Suit schedule properties belonged to the Household Department and that the land was transferred for a specific time and specific purpose; re-transfer of land on May 3rd, 1951 was lawyers in Supreme Cour of Indiat conformity with Item No.

Additionally, the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC was added with the charge under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 364 and 404 of the IPC. In support of this argument he has relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Mettur Industries Ltd. As soon as the standing orders become operative they bind both the employer and all the employees then in his service. 2009 which contained many recommendations. 2(1) of the Factories Act. and included representatives of the private mobile telephone service providers.

2009, the charges were framed under Sections 364, 376(2)(g) and 302 read with 34 and 404 read with 34 of the IPC. It is thus clear that the reference is primarily concerned with the main industrial dispute raised by the respondent about the propriety and the validity of the system of forced retirement introduced by the appellant and this question had to be decided by the tribunal on the merits. 7 standing orders would bind all the employees of the employer without any distinction.

2010, the charge was altered and the independent charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC was added. The first point which has been urged before us by the learned Attorney-General on behalf of the appellant is that the Authority was in error in holding that the progress timekeepers are workers under s. In the present case cognizance was taken when on February 2, 1053, the Additional District Magistrate applied his mind to the case with a view to issuing a process and sent the case for trial to another magistrate.

On December 19, 1953, the certifying officer duly certified the said orders after giving the trade unions of the appellant's workmen an opportunity to be heard and after considering their objections. Pursuant to the investigations, a charge-sheet was duly filed by the police. On that hypothesis the third question requires the tribunal to decide whether the 47 workmen are entitled to any compensation and/or reinstatment.

2006, the Government constituted a Committee headed by Shri Subodh Kumar, Additional Secretary, Department of Telecommunications. The learned Attorney- General contends that the 47 employees who have been retired on the ground that they had exceeded the age of superannuation were bound by the relevant standing order which fixed the age of superannuation at the age of 55; and until the said standing order is modified according to law it would not be open to them to question the validity of their compulsory retirement.

It is, however, for the Court to decide whether the facts of the case justify invocation of original jurisdiction or it is a fit case for exercising supervisory jurisdiction If court fees payable for invoking only one of the Articles 226 and 227 have been affixed, the Court before dismissing the application on that ground may give option to the petitioner to choose only one of such provisions, if he does not pay the balance amount of court fees and the application should be treated accordingly.

n(xiii) A combined application under both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be entertainable only when the court fees payable for invoking both the provisions have been paid in aggregate. 197 of the Code and that in verifying the appellant's claims he was discharging his official duty, s. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges and thus, the case was committed to trial. Against the said orders no appeal was preferred by the respondent, and so they became final and operative as conditions of service between the parties.

Since both the parties have partly succeeded and failed before us we direct that each party should bear its own costs. With these modifications the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is confirmed. It is only the third question which has reference to the 47 workmen who have been compulsorily retired; and this question is framed on the hypothesis that the forced retirement of the appellant's employees under the system introduced by the relevant standing order is upheld by the tribunal.

1978 which were sent by the respondents to the appellant are re-produced below:- Dear Sir, This has reference to the meeting held in your office on 29th November, 1997 when our representatives and your Directors were present. Agrawal-a former Director of the Respondent No.