SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(AP) 206

N.KUMARAYYA, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Maturi Durgaiah – Appellant
Versus
Agent, Tandur Collieries, Bellampalli – Respondent


REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) WE do not think that any exception Could be taken to either of the two views of our learned brother, Seshachalapati, J. , in the writ petition.

( 2 ) OUR learned brother dismissed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, the Agent Tandur Collieries, Bellampally, to accord the status of Mine Employees to the appellant and other eartmen and give them all benefits incidental to that status.

( 3 ) THE appellant along with twelve other carbnen is engaged in clearing the rubbish and garbage from the campus of the Tandur Collieries Colony. They remove the dirt and the rubbish through bullock-carts owned by them and they are paid daily wages at Rs. 2-13-0 a day.

( 4 ) THE respondent is the agent of the Singareni Collieries Co. , within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Mines Act (35 of 1952 ). Section 48 of the Mines Act, provides that for every mine there should be kept in the prescribed form and place a register of persons employed in the Mine showing the various particulars referred to in clauses (a) to (h) together with the entries under Sub-section (ii) and other clauses of the section. The All India Industrial Tribunal (Coll












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top