Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing The Regional Provident ... vs Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturingco., ... on 14 March, 1962

Union Of India & Anr vs Ogale Glass Works on 1 September, 1971

Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the judgment of the High Court in full as also the reasons given by the High Court for holding, that there has been a decision by the Central Government under S. 19A. In this connection he referred to certain passages contained in the communications that passed between the appellants and the respondent. The counsel further urged that when the Central Government took a decision under S. 19A, as is evidenced by the letters dated August 19, 1959 and September 21, 1959, that decision was not in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The said decision by the Central Government was not a provisional one to abide the adjudication by this Court regarding the Bombay High Court's judgment. On the other hand, the said decision was a totally independent one taken under s. 19A by the Central Government in respect of the respondent's establishment in view of the contentions raised by it before the appropriate authorities. The counsel further urged that the liability of the respondent for the period now covered by the demand dated May 22, 1963 was the subject of adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal on a dispute raised by the employees. The award has considered all aspects. and has exempted the respondent from making any contribution for certain years. That decision is binding on the workmen and the award is still in force. The claim made by the appellants is really an attempt made by the employees indirectly to circumvent the decision in I.D. No. 29 of 1960. Finally, the counsel urged that even on the principles laid down by this Court regarding the applicability of the Act, the respondent's objections regarding their liability in respect of certain sections are valid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 19 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Swastik Textile Trading Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi), New Delhi And Ors. on 16 November, 1964

In my judgment, if a narrower interpretation were to be given to the word "factory", then, it would introduce practical difficulties in the application of the aforesaid test laid down by their Lordships. The matter can be tested in this way also. Supposing if all the three articles were being manufactured in one and the same building, then, it is crystal clear that, for the purpose of computing the number of workers, the workers engaged in the manufacture of all the three articles would be included. It does not stand to reason that the workers should be denied the benefit of the provisions of the Act by the mere fact that, for economic or other reasons, the employer accommodates the workers in separate buildings, but in the same compound. This is apart from the question as to whether the separation was designed to avoid the provisions of the Act. Even apart from the latter question, in the present case, all the three buildings together must he regarded as constituting one factory having regard to the fact that they were situated in one and the same compound specially because when we find that plaintiff is engaged in the activity of producing articles which arc used in one and the same industry, namely, the textile industry
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sovachand Mulchand vs The Collector Of Central Excise And Land ... on 23 November, 1966

Then in Regional Provident Fund Commr. Bombay v. Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co., Bhandara an appeal was preferred against a decision of the Bombay High Court. In the prayers of the petition only an appropriate writ was asked for to restrain the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from enforcing certain provisions of the Employees' provident Funds Act, 1952, against the petitioner. The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and an appropriate writ was issued. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner went to the Supreme Court with the High Court's Certificate. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Urmila Rungta on 6 February, 1992

In that connection, the Delhi High Court relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court interpreting Section 1(3)(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co. , The relevant passage which was the corner-stone of the ratio in National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 465, 470 is set out hereunder :
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prince Azam Jah vs Expenditure-Tax Officer on 14 April, 1967

67. Hence, the amending Act merely included any person other than a spouse or a child who is also maintained by the assessee, that is, in addition to a spouse or a minor child who are also being maintained by the assessee. It cannot, therefore, be interpreted as a matter of grammatical construction that the qualifying clause refers only to the last class immediately preceding "any person", but not to the previous classes of persons. If the context requires that the qualifying clause should refer to all the previous classes of persons, it should be so interpreted. Reference may be made in this connection to the case of the Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay v. Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co., in which it is held that the ordinary rule of grammar on which a construction is based cannot be treated as a rule which must always and in every case be accepted without regard to the context and that when the context definitely suggests that the relevant rule of grammar is inapplicable, then the requirement of the context must prevail over the rule of grammar. Applying the said rule, the Supreme Court, disregarding the rule of grammar, interpreted a qualifying clause with reference to the context in construing certain words of the Employees' Provident Funds Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 48 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Varjivandas Hirji & Co. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 1 April, 1968

Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay v. Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturing Company and another [1962 - I L.L.J. 427]. This was a case not under S. 1(3)(b) but under S. 1(3)(a) of the Act. In that case the establishment carried on two manufacturing businesses, one of which fell in Sch. I and the other did not. It was held that if the dominating activity fell within Sch. I, the entire establishment would attract the provisions of S. 1(3)(a). That case has, in our opinion, no relevance to the contention of the petitioners under S. 1(3)(b), which is directly governed by the case of Basantlal referred to above.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Varjivandas Hirji And Co. vs D.T. Ghatpande And Anr. on 1 April, 1968

The petitioners have cited to us a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commr. of Bombay v. Shri Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co., Bhandara. . This was a case not under Section 1(3)(b) but under Section 1(3)(a) of the Act. In that case the establishment carried on two manufacturing businesses, one of which fell in Schedule 1 and the other did not. It was held that if the dominating activity fell within Schedule I, the entire establishment would attract the provisions of Section 1(31(a). That case has, in our opinion. no relevance to the contention of the petitioners under Section 1(31(b), which is directly governed by the case of Basantlal referred to above.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 June, 1987

In support Shri Setalwad placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay v. Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co., , the relevant paragraph being 18 at page 1542 and the Delhi High Court decision in the case of National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi, 74 I.T.R. 465 (at page 470). Though the fact that 23 air conditioners were, as a matter of fact, assembled without the license, and 18 out of them were removed from the factory without payment of excise duty payable thereon, was admitted, it was urged that the petitioners were not required to obtain license for the manufacture of air conditioners in terms of Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners, it was further contended, were precluded from manufacturing air conditioners under the collaboration agreement, with 'Tecumesh Products Company'. Moreover, if the petitioners were interested in marketting air conditioners, they would have advertised the products and would have certainly not used the cabinets bearing names of some other company. According to Shri Setalwad, the whole purpose of installing compressors of the capacity of 1.5 tons in the air conditioners was to observe the performance of the compressors.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs M/S. Ict. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd on 22 November, 1994

1. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter the 'Act', was enacted to serve beneficient purpose and it does constitute a welfare measure, as it seeks to create a fund which could be drawn upon by certain categories of employees working in factories and some establishments to meet pressing demands, so also to provide pension after the employees have ceased to be in service. So the Act has to be construed in such a way, in case two views be possible, which advances the object. This has been the outlook of the Court for over three decades by now, as the same was first focused in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sri Krishna Metal Manufacturing Company, 1962 (Supp.) 3 SCR.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 29 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1   2 Next