Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Pushpa Gupta vs Chairman & Managing Director, ... on 3 December, 1994

G.S. Puri vs Indian Oil Corporation on 9 February, 1996

(5) On behalf of respondents, Shri J.L. Seth, Respondent No.4 who had issued the transfer order has filed the counter affidavit. It is denied that the transfer order has been passed on account of any malafides and/or by way of victimisation, and it is pleaded that it was passed on account of exigencies of business and on administrative grounds, inter-alia because there was no Accountant available at Afs, Udaipur where the petitioner was transferred, and no substitute was necessary for him at Jammu, that he was doing business in the name of his wife at Jammu and a number of complaints had been received against him from other workmen/employees. It is also denied that the officers concerned of the respondent had favoured any particular contractor in award of transport contract. Other pleas taken have also been denied. Reliance has inter-alia been placed on: (1) Pushpa Gupta Vs. Engineers India Ltd. .
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 36 - J B Goel - Full Document

B.N. Dora Prasad vs Hotel Samrat on 8 February, 1995

(7) The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioner has not Worked for more than 240 days in a particular year and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief on this count. He has referred me to the counter affidavit of the respondents wherein it is mentioned at page 17 that on the request of the petitioner to the effect that he was without a job, the Tender Award Committee had engaged him as a clerk on adhoc and purely temporary basis on daily wages. The duration of the engagement was for a fixed period and for a specified work and it came to an end automatically. The Tender Award Committee's functioning was a limited, intermittant and sporadic nature. The said Committee was to receive only tenders and to finalise the same and thereafter its functioning was over. On this analogy Mr. Bhandari contends that it cannot be said that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a particular year. Reference is made to the judgments of this Court, as reported in Between Tarlok Chand and others And National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & others 1994 (2) Llj page 1130, Ms. Pushpa Gupta v. Chairman & Managing Director Engineers India Ltd., and another 1995 I Ad (Delhi) 63 and Shri D.P.Singh v. M/s Engineering Projects (India) Limited 1995 I Ad (Delhi) 478 to reiterate the proposition that when the questions of facts are disputed and the effective alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is available the writ petition cannot be entertained. In view of the fact that the averments which have been made by the petitioner in the writ petition are disputed by the respondents, it cannot be said that the petition does not raise disputed questions of facts. The efficacious and adequate alternate remedy available to the petitioner will, therefore, be under the Industrial Disputes Act and it will not be open for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1