Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (2.55 seconds)
Documents citing R. Rathakrishnan vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 11 October, 2007

M.Visuwasam Samuelraj vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 25 January, 2022

In light of my conclusion as aforesaid, I need make no reference to the submissions of learned counsel relating to the scourge of back door entrants, turning upon the judgments in A.Uma Rani vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2004(7) SCC 112), L.Justin and another vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2002(4) CTC 385) and R.Radhakrishnan vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2007(6) MLJ 455).
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

S.Veerabhadran vs The Special Officer on 1 December, 2009

In R.Rathakrishnan v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dindigul reported in 2007 (5) CTC 369, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, another Full Bench of this Court, held that insofar as the appointments made in contravention of statutory rule/constitutional mandate, the State Government cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 162 of Constitution or under any Act to direct regularisation of services in view of clear dicta of Apex Court in Umarani's case. The Full Bench further held that the Court cannot grant interim order so as to perpetuate services of irregular/illegal appointees and Article 226 cannot be used for such purposes.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

)The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... vs )M.Panneer Losini ... 1St on 8 March, 2016

15.Placing reliance on a Hon'ble Full Bench decision of this Court in R.Radhakrishnan vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dindigul Circle, Dindigul, reported in 2007 (5) CTC 369, he further submitted that even the Government have no power to regularise illegal appointments. In sum and substance, he submitted that both on facts and law, when there is no scope for regularisation of illegal or irregular appointments, contrary to the statutory rule 149 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 and hence, the Writ Court ought not to have issued directions for regularisation.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

)The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... vs )M.Panneer Losini ... 1St on 8 March, 2016

15.Placing reliance on a Hon'ble Full Bench decision of this Court in R.Radhakrishnan vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dindigul Circle, Dindigul, reported in 2007 (5) CTC 369, he further submitted that even the Government have no power to regularise illegal appointments. In sum and substance, he submitted that both on facts and law, when there is no scope for regularisation of illegal or irregular appointments, contrary to the statutory rule 149 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 and hence, the Writ Court ought not to have issued directions for regularisation.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Petroleum Employees' Union vs The Management Of Oil & Natural

27. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Management that there cannot be any positive direction to the respondent/ONGC to regularize the services of the workmen, if they were appointed in violation of the rules and regulations and drawn the attention of this Court to the Full Bench decision of this Court in R.Rathakrishnan v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dindigul [2007 (4) L.L.N. 868] and also reiterated his submissions by placing reliance upon the decision in State of Gujarat and Another v. Karshanbhai K.Rabari and Others [2006 (3) L.L.J. 359], which laid down the proposition that regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment, through which permanence can be given to adhoc employee.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2009

5. It is the case of the petitioner employer that the computation petitions should not have been entertained since the beneficiaries have not filed the applications before the Labour Court and in fact, the beneficiaries have not been arrayed as parties in the computation petitions and only the claimant represented the workmen. It is also the case of the petitioner that under Rule 54 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules,1958 the beneficiaries should put their signatures in the petition and the appointment of representative for the beneficiaries is against the provisions of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co.operative Societies Rules and also against the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Rathakrishnan,R. vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co.operative Societies [2007 (5) CTC 369].
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

K.Kamaraj vs The Chief Executive Officer on 22 July, 2011

5.Thereafter, in cases where terminations were sought to be made on grounds that appointments were either irregular or due to lack of qualifications, certain groups of writ petitions came to be filed stating that the Government had taken a policy decision to absorb such employees and till such time, the court must give protective orders. Even those cases came to be rejected by a Full Bench of this court in R.Radhakrishnan Vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dindigul reported in 2007 (4) LLN 868.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next