Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.72 seconds)

The Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2019

(i) temporary employees who have put in 240 days of temporary service in any continuous period of 12 months between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1990 will be considered for absorption in the immediate available vacancies without any test and interview; (ii) temporary employees who have worked for 180 days during the period from 01.01.1987 to 24.02.1990 and are registered with the Employment Exchange, but have not been sponsored will be called to appear in the immediate sub-staff recruitment test as and when held; and (iii) temporary employees whose names have been sponsored / forwarded by Employment Exchange and have worked for 60 days on temporary basis in any one year during the period from 01.01.1987 to 24.12.1990 will also be called for the immediate http://www.judis.nic.in 5/26 Judgment dt: 16.07.2019 in W.A.No.1026/2013 [The Central Bank of India V. Presiding Officer] sub staff recruitment test. The Circular also clarified that temporary employees covered under paras (ii) and (iii) above do not include categories such as PTSKs, water boys, watchmen and drivers and they should not be called for the test. However, the respondent / workman in the present case did not satisfy the requirement of having worked for the requisite number of days and had registered himself with the Employment Exchange only in the year 1989. He was therefore not called for the test.

Municipal Council vs Ku. Vibhavqari Vithal Saraf on 30 July, 2010

i] Satyaprakash and others vs. State of Bihar and others [2010 (4) SCC 179] ii] Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another [2008 (I) CLR 892 SC] iii] Central Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer and another [2008 (II) CLR 1020] iv] Executive Engineer and another vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and another; [2008 (III) CLR 888] v] U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd and another vs. Uditnarayan Pande [2006 (1) SCC 479] vi] Mohammad Shaukat Ali vs. Industrial Labour Court, Warangal and others [2008 (I) CLR 144] 10] The Apex Court in the matter of Umadevi in paragraph 43, 45 and 47 has observed as under;

Municipal Council vs Ku. Vibhavqari Vithal Saraf on 30 July, 2010

i] Satyaprakash and others vs. State of Bihar and others [2010 (4) SCC 179] ii] Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another [2008 (I) CLR 892 SC] iii] Central Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer and another [2008 (II) CLR 1020] iv] Executive Engineer and another vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and another; [2008 (III) CLR 888] v] U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd and another vs. Uditnarayan Pande [2006 (1) SCC 479] vi] Mohammad Shaukat Ali vs. Industrial Labour Court, Warangal and others [2008 (I) CLR 144] 10] The Apex Court in the matter of Umadevi in paragraph 43, 45 and 47 has observed as under;

Municipal Council vs Ku. Vibhavqari Vithal Saraf on 30 July, 2010

i] Satyaprakash and others vs. State of Bihar and others [2010 (4) SCC 179] ii] Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another [2008 (I) CLR 892 SC] iii] Central Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer and another [2008 (II) CLR 1020] iv] Executive Engineer and another vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and another; [2008 (III) CLR 888] v] U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd and another vs. Uditnarayan Pande [2006 (1) SCC 479] vi] Mohammad Shaukat Ali vs. Industrial Labour Court, Warangal and others [2008 (I) CLR 144] 10] The Apex Court in the matter of Umadevi in paragraph 43, 45 and 47 has observed as under;
1