Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus M/S. MURUGAN TALKIES

Decided
12 December 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 618 · 1995 INSC 882
Also cited as
  • (1996) 1 SCC 504 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 12533/86 dated November 24, 1994. The respondent and others challenged the validity of Sections 24 and 25 of Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act (50 of 1981)(for short 'the Act') and the notification of Government of India bearing No. 35016 issued by Ministry of Labour on April 30, 1986. The Division Bench while upholding the validity of the Act has given relief to the respondent to pay their share of the contribution w.e.f. the date of judgment dated November 24, 1994.

p. 619, margin E

The Union of India has filed this appeal. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in District Exhibitors Association Muzffamagar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] 3 SCC 119 upholds the validity of the provisions and the rules. However, it was held that the employer's contribution should be made effective from the date of the order setting aside the retrospective operation of the notification. It can thus be concluded that from the date of the notification the owners of the Cinema Theatre are liable to contribute their share and also entitle to deduct from the wages of the workmen towards their share of provident fund and to have it credited to the account maintained by the appropriate authority in that behalf.

pp. 619–620, margin G

It is contended for the respondents that the High Court has granted the relief taking into consideration that some workmen had retired and it would be inequitable to deduct from the meagre wages of existing employees with retrospective period. Therefore, the High Court directed deduction of their share from the date of the judgment. It is needless to mention that since some of the workmen have already retired and from some existing workmen deduction from date of enforcement of the notification would cause great hardship to them, so it cannot be made to bear the burden of their contribution with retrospective effect from the date of the notification towards their share of contribution.

p. 620, margin B

To that extent, the order of the High Court is upheld. As regards the liability of the owners of the theaters who approached the High Court, the operation of the notification had stayed at their instance. We find that High Court was wholly unjustified in granting the same relief to these owners/licencees. After their writ petitions were dismissed, they were to bear the liability from the date of the enforcement for the notification as held by this Court. It is, therefore, necessary that from the date on which the respective owners of the theaters or the licencees, who had filed the writ petition in the High Court, ar~ :;a!,!;: to deposit their share of contribution towards provident fund account under the scheme.

p. 620, margin D

We are issuing the order under Article 142 of the Constitution. The order of the High Court lo that extent is set aside. The respondent and all the theaters owners are directed to deposit their share of contribution to the provident fund account from the respective dates on which they filed the writ petitions in the High Court. The appellants should intimate all of them the date on which they had filed the writ petitions and call upon them to pay their share of contribution.

p. 620, margin F

The appeal is accordingly allowed to above extent. No costs. v.s.s. Appeal allowed.

p. 620, margin G