The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that Section 5-A(2), which represents statutory embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem, gives an opportunity to the objector to make an endeavour to convince the Collector that his land is not required for the public purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) or that there are other valid reasons for not acquiring the same. , who spoke for the Court, referred to the earlier decision and restated the basis for awarding bonus thus at p.
, Dwarka Cement Works, Dwarka v. Hence, the order passed by the State of Tamil Nadu authorizing the deleted third respondent herein to engage the services of the fifth respondent is without authority and non est in the eye of law. It accepted the principles laid down by the said Full Bench Formula and elaborately considered the mode of application of the prin. , (2011) 5 SCC 553 and observed ” This decision lays down in clear terms that the payment of bonus is linked with profits.
The recovery of weapon, namely, kirpan which according to the doctor could have resulted in the injuries suffered by PW-15 Sukhwinder Singh and Jassi Illegal Custody and Habeas Corpus Advocate in Chandigarh the blood-stained seat cover are other circumstances lending complete corroboration. That order does not confer any right on the fifth respondent to represent either the State of Karnataka or the State of Tamil Nadu in the pending appeals before this Court. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627, Radhy Shyam v. In view of our findings recorded above that the transferor Court has no power to appoint a Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of the Code in respect of a case pending in the transferee Court, the argument that the appellant has not challenged the said order of appointment has no merit.
That section also makes it obligatory for the Collector to submit report(s) to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him so that the Government may take appropriate decision on the objections. But this decision was given in a dispute between one specified mill, namely, Muir Mills Co. Therefore, the State of Tamil Nadu has no jurisdiction to appoint a Public Prosecutor in the Special Court nor in the appeals which are pending in this Court.
This Court was not considering a case of a bonus claim on industry-cum-region basis. ciples for ascertaining the “available surplus. “It is therefore clear that the claim for bonus can be made by the employees only if as a result of the joint contribution of capital and labour the industrial concern has earned profits. If in any particular year the working of the industrial concern has resulted domestice violence advocate in Chandigarh loss there is no basis nor justification for a demand for bonus. PAO is another circumstance.
This necessarily implies that the State Government is required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. -(1) The export agency shall, at such time as it thinks fit, make to the owners who have 9 66 delivered sugar to it under this Act, payments determined in accordance with the provisions hereinafter in this section contained.
Mukesh Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. I shall consider this aspect at a later stage of the judgment. The communication by Ashwani Kumar and Anil Kumar with the number in Canada which itself was the source for the fax-message Ext. nGurdial Singh INSC 220; , (1980) 2 SCC 471, Shyam Nandan Prasad v. The principle of the decision, namely, that the claim for bonus is linked with profits, may equally apply to such a case; but the working Suspension of Sentense Law Firm in Chandigarh the principle must necessarily depend upon the peculiarities of such a claim.
Bonus is not a deferred wage. Industrial law is in the process of evolution and it cannot be put in a straight jacket, but must be allowed to grow to meet varying situations that present themselves to industrial tribunals, subject of course to the statutory provisions and the general principles laid down by courts. Limited and the Union, representing its employees. The courts below were therefore perfectly justified in finding Ashwani Kumar and Anil Kumar guilty of the offences under Sections 364/307 and 302 IPC.
State of Bihar, (1993) 4 SCC 255, Union of India v. It is unnecessary to consider the other decisions on this subject except the recent decision of this Court in The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. All these circumstances stand proved and clearly point in the direction of the guilt of Ashwani Kumar and Anil Kumar and additionally lend complete support to the testimony of and identification by PW 15 Sukhwinder Singh.
The application of the principles laid down by this decision to a bonus claim on industry-cum-region basis -would, to some extent, be different from its application to a single unit. Then and then only, a declaration can be made under Section 6(1) Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A that particular land is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration should be made.
Its Workmen That decision reviewed the entire law on the subject vis-a-vis the profit bonus.