Back
P. N. SHINGHAL, M. H. BEG, A. N. RAY
A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad: General Manager, A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad: A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad: A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
P. Venkateswara Rao: M. Ramamohan Rao: A. J. Ruben: B. Jammiah, Retd. Driver – Respondent
M.H.BEG, J.
(1) A number of appeals filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation are before us by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, against orders of a Labour court passed under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts of the first of these appeals may be stated to illustrate the kind of circumstances in which a common question of law involved in these appeals arises.
(2) THE respondent P. Venkateswara Rao, who was employed on 6/10/1933, retired on 10/02/1968, after putting in more than 34 years of service. As he was a former employee of the Nizams State Railway, his service conditions were governed by the provisions of the government of Hyderabad Railway Department Establishment Code of 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Code). He claimed that he was entitled to receive a gratuity at a half months salary for each year of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 15 months salary as laid down in Rule 8.01 of the Code, which says: 8.01. Condition of eligibility.-Gratuity is .granted at the discretion of government in the Railway Department as a reward for .good. efficient, continuo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
