Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.59 seconds)Article 392 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 37 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub-Area And ... vs Ganga Prasad And Anr. on 7 February, 1956
12. The decisions in Satish Chander v. Delhi Improvement Trust, , Jagu Singh v. Shaukat Alil, 58 Cal Wn 1066 and Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub-Area v. Ganga Prasad, are also distinguishable. They invalidated the provisions of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, because the Act empowered the Competent Authority to summarily evict persons alleged to be in unauthorised occupation of Government premises without giving them any opportunity to show cause against such eviction. This unfettered and arbitrary power was ubject only to an appeal to the Government. But section 7-A on the other hand expressly requires the Commissioner to give a hearing to the employer. Further the decision of the Commissioner is subject to review by the Central Government under Section 19-A and also by the Civil courts, by the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
State Of Bihar vs Kamla Kant Misra And Ors. on 29 October, 1969
13. Shri Misra also relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kamla Kant Mishra, Civil Appeal NO. 21 of 1966, D/- 21-10-1969 (SC) wherein the majority held Section 144(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code unconstitutional. The reason was that the power of the Central Government to extend the time during which the restriction on personal liberties was imposed by the Magistrate First Class was completely unfettered. In the present case, the Act and the Scheme completely confine the power of the Commissioner. IT is not unfettered at all. This decision, therefore, does not help the petitioners.
Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works, Kakkat, ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 20 August, 1962
17. On the other hand, in Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, , Vaidialingam, J., (as he then was) held that the decision by the Central Government under Section 19-A may be solicited even by a private person who is affected by the implementation of the provisions of the Act. For, it could not be the intention of the legislature that the decision of the Provident Fund Commissioner alone was sufficient to apply the Act to the factories and the establishments which in his opinion are covered by the Act. There is no provisions in the statute except Section 19-A whereby an adjudication of the essential facts has to be made and an investigation conducted by any other authority. In this background Section 19-A should be construed as an enabling section available not only to the department but also to the employers.
Assistant Commissioner Of Urban Land ... vs The Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd., Etc on 11 April, 1969
20. Is the power, of either kind, delegated to the Central Government under Section 19-A excessive or uncanalized? So far as the quasi-judicial power of the Central Government to give an opinion by way of a decision on an existing controversy is concerned, as observed by the Supreme court in Assistant Commr. Of Urban Land Tax, Madras v. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., , paragraph (10) the doctrine of excessive delegation of authoirty has no application. The only objections urged by Shri Misra against his power are that no personal hearing was given to the petitioners before the Central Government passed the impugned order under Section 19-A and that the order did not give reasons for the decision. As already stated above, Section 7-A expressly requires the employer to be heard by the Commissioner. One of the grounds on which the employer can object to the determination of the amount due from him is that the Act does not apply to his factory at all.
Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs P. N. Sharma And Another on 9 December, 1964
A similar right to be heard would be implied by Courts in construing Section 19-A on the principle laid down in Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 Ac 40; Associated Cement Co. Ltd., v. P. N. Sharma, and Bhagwan v. Ramchand, . The right of hearing being thus secured by a mere rule of construction. It cannot be urged that Section 19-A is invalid because it does not expressly provide for a hearing. The detailed representation made by the petitioners to the Central Government was in pursuance of the right to be heard. The question is whether the petitioners were entiled to be heard orally by the Central Government. The result of the English case-law and the statutes passed after the Frank's committee Report 1959 on this point has been recently summed up by an eminent author as follows:- "In the absence of clear statutory guidance in the matter, one who is entitled to the protection of audi alteram partem rule is now prima facie entitled to put his case orally; but in a number of contexts the Courts have held natural justice to have been satisfied by an opportunity to make written representations to the deciding body, and there are still many situations where a person will be able to present his case adequately in this way." (S.A. de Smith Judicial Review of Administrative Actions, p. 189, Second Edition).
The Commissioner Of ... vs Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills Ltd on 8 November, 1960
In the Commr. Of Income-tax v. Dewan bahadur Ramgopal Mills Ltd., , paragraph (8) the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1`950 made under Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1950, was upheld by the Supreme Court.