BINANI ZINC EMPLOYEES UNION

VS

LABOUR COMMISSIONER TRIVANDRUM

[1999-LLR-1156 HC-KER]

G.L.BHATIA

VS

UNION OF INDIA

[1999(3)LLN 835 SC]

RAMESWAR DEVI

VS

STATE OF BIHAR [2000(85)FLR 174 SC]

-    ARE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS BOUND TO GIVE A PAID HOLIDAY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DECLARES A HOLIDAY FOR POLL DAYS UNDER SECTION 135-B(4) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT.

-    A CENTRAL CIVIL SERVANT WAS SEPARATED FROM HER HUSBAND AND DID NOT NOMINATE HER HUSBAND FOR FAMILY PENSION

-    AFTER HER DEATH HE CLAIMED BENEFITS, IS HE ENTITLED

-    A HINDU CIVIL SERVANT CONTRACTED ANOTHER MARRIAGE WHILE HIS FIRST WIFE WAS LIVING AND HAD A CHILD OUT OF THIS MARRIAGE.

-      AFTER THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND, THE SECOND WIFE CLAIMED DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT GRATUITY AS HIS WIDOW.

-      IS SHE ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT EXTENDABLE TO A WIDOW

-    IF THE FACTORY IS ENGAGED IN CONTINUOUS PROCESS INDUSTRY AND THE ABSENCE OF EMPLOYEES MAY CAUSE DANGER OR SUBSTANTIAL LOSS TO THE ESTABLISHEMENT BY ITS CLOSURE ON SUCH POLL DAYS, IT IS NOT OBLIGATORY FOR SUCH FACTORIES TO CLOSE ON SUCH POLL DAYS

-    IT IS ENOUGH IF SUITABLE TIME OFF IS GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEES ON DUTY TO EXERCISE THEIR FRANCHISE

     EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE LIVING SEPARATELY, SINCE THERE WAS NO DIVORCE SEVERING THEIR RELATIONSHIP, HE IS ENTITLED TO FAMILY PENSION UNDER RELEVANT RULES.

     UNDER THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1956 SECTIONS 5, 8, 10, 11 SECOND MARRIAGE IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 5(1) AND IS NOT A VALID MARRIAGE AND HENCE SHE IS NOT A WIDOW AND HENCE N0T ELIGIBLE

HOWEVER UNDER SECTION 16, HER SON WOULD BE A LEGITIMATE SON AND BE ELIGIBLE TO A SHARE OF THE DEATH GRATUITY BENEFITS ALONG WITH THE FIRST WIFE AND THE SON OUT OF THE FIRST MARRIAGE.

SOVARSI DALAI

VS

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC [1999-II-LLJ 172-HC-ORI]

-    AN EMPLOYEE HAD TAKEN AN LIC POLICY AND EMPLOYER HAD AGREED TO COLLECT AND REMIT PREMIUM THROUGH SALARY

-    THOUGH PREMIUM WAS COLLECTED, IT WAS NOT REMITTED ONTIME AND POLICY LAPSED

-    EMPLOYEE DIED AND NOMINEES CLAIMED BENEFIT

-      IS LIC LIABLE TO PAY

-    LIC IS NOT LIABLE AS THERE IS NO VALID POLICY

-    SINCE LIC PREMIA WERE DEDUCTED AND EMPLOYER HAS DEFAULTED IN REMITTANCE, EMPLOYER HAS TO PAY THE BENEFIT PAYABLE UNDER THE LAPSED POLICY.

KAPIL DEO PRASAD SAHA

VS

STATE OF BIHAR

[1999 LAB.IC.3234 SC]

OR

INDIAN AIRPORT EMPLOYES UNION

VS

RAJAN CHATTERJEE [1999 ILL 661-SC]

     WILL CASUAL, ACCIDENTAL OR UNINTENTIONAL ACT OR GENUINE INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH COURTS ORDER AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ATTRACTING PUNISHMENT.

-    A PERSON SUING ANOTHER FOR CONTEMPT MUST PROVE THAT THE NON-COMPLIANCE IS DELIBERATE AND CONTUMACIOUS DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURTS ORDER

     WILLFUL OR DELIBERATE WOULD NOT INCLUDE BONAFIDE UNINTENTIONAL ACTS OR GENUINE INABILITY IN MAKING COMPLIANCE

PARAPURAM MILL COOP. SOCIETY

VS

DEP. DIRECTORY DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY [1999-I-LLJ 1199-HC-KER]

-    THE BOARD OF THE MILK SOCIETY PASSED RESOLUTION TO TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEES SERVICES FOR MISAPPROPRIATION.

-      ON A PETITION BY THE EMPLOYEE, THE REGISTRAR OF COOP. SOCIETIES USING HIS POWERS OF REVIEW UNDER RULE 176 OF THE COOP. ACT RESCINDED THE RESOLUTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE PUNISHMENT WAS DISPROPORTIONATE AND NO OPPORTUNITY, GIVEN TO EMPLOYEE TO CORRECT HIMSELF.

     REVIEWING THE POWERS OF THE REGISTRAR UNDER RULE 176, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE REGISTRAR CAN RESCIND A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD ONLY IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:

i.    it is ultra vires of the objects of the society.

ii    IT is against the act, rules, bye-laws