No negative equality could be claimed. As for buildings, it applied a different multiplier and a understanding (click the following webpage) different divisor, and so far as that is concerned no dispute has been raised before us. The matter was decided on the basis of concession and the agreement between the parties. In these circumstances as these fortyeight workmen were taking part in the go-slow and were thus guilty of serious misconduct, the management was entitled to get permission to dismiss them. The correctness of such a decision though is amenable to judicial review, such a review is possible only on a few limited grounds as expounded and settled by this Court.
33; (see the decision of this Court in the Management of Ranipur Col- click through the up coming website page through the following website page [click the following webpage] liery v. The Appellate Tribunal also accepted the divisor 10 for all discover this info here plant, machinery, etc. The said Rule deals with procedure for taking Suggested official site (Get Source) down the summary of evidence. 33 were practically converted into the enquiry which normally the management should have held before applying to the Industrial Tribunal, the management is bound to pay the wages of the workmen till a case for dismissal was made out in the proceedings under s.
– (1) Where the case is adjourned for the purpose of having the evidence reduced to waiting, at the adjourned hearing evidence of the witnesses who were present and gave evidence before the commanding officer, whether against or for the accused, and of any other person whose evidence appears to be relevant, shall be taken down in writing in the presence and hearing of the accused before the commanding officer or such officer as he directs.
It was submitted before us on behalf of the Rajasthan Housing Board that a review petition had been preferred for recalling the aforesaid concession made unauthorisedly before the court. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, we have to consider the evidentiary value of Exhibit 36, the statement recorded at the time of summary of evidence under Rule 23 of the Rules. Ratni Devi (supra), it was based upon a concession made by visit the following page counsel who appeared on behalf of the Jaipur Development Authority.
Procedure for taking down the summary of evidence. As already pointed out, this is the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal while dealing with the application under s. By a constitutional declaration under the said Article, the same ‘shall be final’. Whenever it intended to affect the rights of parties, it used the word ” rules “, but in this section it designedly used the words appropriate to the control of administrative machinery.
On behalf of the Society, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court In Nathu Ram (dead) by LRs. The Division Bench has gravely erred in law while issuing the aforesaid directions which were wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. When we consider the decision in Smt. Eventually, after making the relevant calculations, it came to the conclusion that there was an available surplus of profits amounting to 22 lacs. It applied a multiplier of 3 so far as the block upto April 1, 1947, was concerned and took the block of additions after 1-4-1947 at cost price, thus using one as multiplier.
In our opinion, the Circular itself is not applicable and it was clearly a misadventure on the part of the Division Bench in the instant case to rely upon the aforesaid decision in Smt. The Appellate Tribunal did not accept these charts. Appellate Tribunal, go-slow is serious misconduct which is insidious in its nature and cannot be countenanced. The management will therefore have to pay the wages during the period of suspension till the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
It is not clear why the Appellate Tribunal did not include the additions made in 1951-52. Learned counsel also submitted that the decision of the Governor is rendered in exercise of the authority conferred under Article 192 of the Constitution on the question whether a member of the legislature “has become subject to any disqualification”,. 33-A which stood confirmed by the dismissal of the appeal by the workmen in that behalf. thus there was no question of the provisions of the circular being applied as the circular was in the form of guidelines for future acquisitions where Khatedars surrendered their lands and award has not been passed.
The petitioner’s case does not fall within the ambit of such permissible judicial review The legislature used two words in the section: (i thought about this) order and (ii) directions. It follows, therefore, that all the forty-eight workmen (two of whom are since said to have died) are exactly in the same position. , and made no difference between the useful life of the machinery purchased over at this website different times. Rule 23 of the Rules being pertinent is reproduced below:- 23.
For the aforesaid reasons, the aforesaid circular could not have been pressed into service by the Society and that too at the appellate stage before the Division Bench. The applicability of the Circular was not considered by the Division Bench. But as the management held no enquiry after suspending the workmen and proceedings under s. It left out of account land altogether, and rightly so. The words ” directions and order ” are defined in one of the Law Lexicons thus: ” Direction contains most of instruction in it; order most of authority.
As for machinery, consisting of plant, machinery, bamboo forest block, furniture, flotilla and vehicles, it divided the block for this purpose into two parts, namely, the block as it existed on April 1, 1947, and the additions made 1038 between April 1, 1947, to March 31, 1951.