Skip to content


S.R. Daruwala and anr. Vs. Rex - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1950CriLJ864
AppellantS.R. Daruwala and anr.
RespondentRex
Excerpt:
.....ground that they are part time employees. the ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the legislature in the definition of working journalist in the working journalists and other newspaper employees (conditions of service and miscellaneous provisions) act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior act i.e. industrial disputes act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. the expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. if a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. however, the court will..........convenience to the parties.2. it is an admitted fact that the applicants have not approached the district magistrate in the matter first. when a remedy was open to the applicants in a lower court there was no reason as to why they should have come up straightway before the higher court, if there were any special reasons that prompted the applicants not to go to lower court first, then they should have given those reasons. it has been held time after time by different high courts that before an application is made to the high court for transfer of a case the district magistrate must be moved first. the high court would not ordinarily entertain an application for transfer when the applicant could under the law have moved the district court for the same relief and has not done be. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Atma Charan, J.C.

1. This is an accused's application for transfer of the case pending against them from Ajmer to Beawar. The application has been made mainly on the ground of convenience to the parties.

2. It is an admitted fact that the applicants have not approached the District Magistrate in the matter first. When a remedy was open to the applicants in a lower Court there was no reason as to why they should have come up straightway before the higher Court, If there were any special reasons that prompted the applicants not to go to lower Court first, then they should have given those reasons. It has been held time after time by different High Courts that before an application is made to the High Court for transfer of a case the District Magistrate must be moved first. The High Court would not ordinarily entertain an application for transfer when the applicant could under the law have moved the District Court for the same relief and has not done be. The High Court would interfere only in the last resort.

3. The application for transfer of the case accordingly is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //