REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

1

SMT R VASANTA

Vs

UNION OF INDIA

2001(2)LLN 354 OR 2001(2) LLJ 843 [HC-MAD-SB]

1

DO THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON A WOMANS RIGHT TO WORK IN THE NIGHT SHIFT UNDER SECTION 66 OF THE FACTORIES ACT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14,15 & 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

1

2

OVER-RULING THE OBJECTIONS PUT UP BY CENTRAL AS WELL AS STATE GOVERNMENT COUNSELS THE SINGLE JUDGE QUOTING VOLUMINOUS CASE LAW HELD THAT IT AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS  OF SEX AND IS THEREFORE VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14,15 & 19.

WHILE ADVISING THE GOVERNMENT TO BRING ABOUT AMENDMENT TO THE LAW, SUGGESTED DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTEREST OF THE WOMEN DEPLOYED ON NIGHT SHIFTS.

2

SUMAN SINHA

Vs

GM(P),PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

[2001-II-LLJ-642 HC-PAT-SB]

1

HAS A NOMINEE TO THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF DECEASED EMPLOYEE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO THE AMOUNT TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER LEGAL HEIRS?

1

2

BASED ON THE EARLIER SUPREME COURT DECISION IN SURBATI DEVIS CASE [AIR 1984 SC 346 OR 1984 (1) SCC 424]

HELD:

NOMINATION ONLY INDICATES THE HAND WHICH IS AUTHORISED TO RECEIVE THE AMOUNTS FROM THE EMPLOYER.

OTHER LEGAL HEIRS HAVE ARIGHT TO CLAIM THEIR SHARE OF THE AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUCCESSION LAW APPLICABLE TO THE DECEASED EMPLOYEE.

3

SREE NARAYANA EDUCATIONAL TRUST

Vs

ASST LABOUR OFFICER

[2001(91)FLR 284 (HC-KER-SB)]

1

2

WILL A SCHOOL AFFILIATED TO THE CBSE COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SHOP[SN 2(15) OR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT [SN2(4)] OF THE KERALA SHOPS 7 ESTABLISHMENTS ACT 1960?

DOES THE ACTIVITIES IN A SCHOLL AMOUNT TO INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR TRADE OR BUSINESS TO BRING IT UNDER THE SHOP & ESTABLISHMENTS ACT?

1

2

  1

  2

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SCHOOL DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DEFINITION OF SHOP OR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHEMENT.

THE SHOPS INSPECTORATES INSISTENCE ON COMPLIANCE OF SHOPS ACT REGULATIONS IS NOT IN ORDER.

NOTE:

IN RAMANATHAN Vs STATE OF KERALA [1991(1) KL 189] HELD A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OFFICE IS NOT A SHOP.

IN AUGUSTINE MATHAI Vs APELLATE AUTHORITY [1998(2) KLT 784 & 1992 (64)FLR 229]HELD A CHURCH OFFICE DOES NOT COME UNDER SHOP OR COMMERCIAL  ESTABLISHMENT

4

ST FRANCIS DE SALES EDN SOCIETY

Vs

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

[2001(4)LLN 731 HC-MAH-DB]

1

CAN THE STATE GOVERNMENT ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO MINORITY EDUCATIONAL ISNSTITUTIONS RECEIVING GRANT-IN AID TO FOLLOW THE RESERVATION POLICY IN MATTERS OF STAFF RECRUITMENT?

1

2

3

PETITIONER BEING A MINORITY INSTITUTION CANNOT BE DIRECTED TO APPOINT TEACHERS OR OTHER STAFF ON THE BASIS OF RESERVATION POLICY FOLLOWED BY THE STATE.

THE DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY STATE GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATICE OF ARTICLE 30(1) PROTECTING MINORITY INSTITUTIONS

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 30(1) IS ABSOLUTE AND CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION.