1504/2009 it is also clear that as far as Tata Steel is concerned, Washery Grade IV coal that it extracts needs to be beneficiated to make it usable in the steel industry and the controversy is limited to the issue of payment of royalty – whether it is payable on raw or unprocessed or ROM coal at the pit-head or it is payable on processed Steel Grade coal. The other set of appeals pertaining to Tata Steel consists of four appeals. As a result of this Act the boundaries of West Bengal were altered under Art.
That being so, the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of the excess royalty paid from 10th August, 1998 (the date of the decision in SAIL) to 25th September, 2000 and if so whether the High Court was right in denying that refund. It is further urged that if it is entirely in the discretion of the employer to introduce or not to introduce a production bonus scheme, the fact that the employer introduces a scheme will not give jurisdiction to the tribunal to interfere with it in any way, for otherwise the tribunal would be compelling the employer in the guise of a revision of the scheme to do something which the tribunal could not initially do.
Also, the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of royalty from 25th September, 2000 till June 2002 and if so, whether the High Court was right in denying that refund. Let us now turn to the question of jurisdiction of the tribunal under the Act to consider a production bonus scheme at all. Our attention Solicitor in Chandigarh this connection was drawn to Shalimar Rope Works Mazdoor Union, Howrah v. 23 of the Indian Contract Act indicated that the Legislature intended to give that word a restricted meaning.
It is contended that these rules were, unfortunately, not brought to the notice of the High Court and that the decision rendered by the High Court accepting the law laid down in SAIL is incorrect. (iv) It can very well be held that the impugned orders of dismissal suffer from want of materials and Advocate in Chandigarh High Court the absence of any material to substantiate the mere oral stand of the Department that holding an inquiry was not reasonably practicable, without offering any reasons, much less in writing, as mandated by Proclaimed Offender Law Firm in Chandigarh, the impugned orders of dismissal are liable to be quashed.
It is, therefore, entirely for the employer to introduce a production bonus scheme or not. The limitation imposed on it by the expression ” the Court regards it as immoral ” clearly indicated that it was also a branch of the common law and should, therefore, be confined to principles recognised and settled by courts. In this context, it must immediately be noted that the contention of the State of Jharkhand is not that Rule 64B and Rule 64C of the MCR have retrospective effect. -These appeals are by Special Leave -from the Award by Shri G.
nThis Act was passed by Parliament under Art. Palit, Judge, Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Proclaimed Offender Advocate in Chandigarh the matter of a dispute between Messrs. The argument is that the introduction of a production bonus scheme is purely discretionary with the employer and no tribunal can impose such a scheme. 9016-17/2014 and are directed against a common judgment and order dated 12th March, 2014 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in W.
Therefore, it is urged that the tribunal cannot have jurisdiction to consider a production bonus scheme at all, for the tribunal would then be doing something which the employer can set at naught by withdrawing the scheme or by nullifying the effect of the tribunal’s order by so arranging that the production does not reach the level at which production bonus becomes payable, for 1021 example, by not providing enough raw material for the purpose. Whether there should be increased production in a particular concern is a matter to be determined entirely by the employer and depends upon a consideration of so many complex factors, namely, the state of the market, the demand for the product, the range of prices, and so on.
judicial decisions confined it to sexual immorality, and wager could not be brought in as new head within its fold nAny law, therefore, based on such fluid concept would defeat its purpose. 3 of the Constitution. 307/2004 has been filed by the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) against the same judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2002. There is good deal of force in the argument up to this point ; but the argument goes further and it is said that even after the scheme is introduced, it is for the same reasons in the discretion of the employer whether to continue it or not.
The submission is that after the decision in SAIL the Government of India issued a notification dated 25th September, 2000 inserting Rule 64B and Rule 64C in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereafter MCR) and as a result of this, Run-of-Mine (ROM) minerals, after being processed in the leased area are exigible to royalty on the processed mineral. These appeals filed by Tata Steel arise out of S. We have their briefly referred to the history of the acquisition and absorption of Chandernagore and its merger with West Bengal because it significantly illustrates the operation of Art 4 the First Schedule to the Constitution was modified.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J.