Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 505 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing Bhagwati Prasad And Ors vs Delhi State Mineral Development ... on 15 December, 1989

Smt.Ammini P T vs U O I And Ors on 13 March, 2012

25. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of Tribunal and direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularisation of her services on the post of Staff Nurse treating her to be qualified on the basis of her continuous satisfactory work of 27 years of the said post, as observed by Larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad's case(supra) that practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The necessary exercise be done, as early as possible, but not later than a period of three months.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - A Mishra - Full Document

Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha vs Valsad Nagar Palika on 2 November, 2018

9.1 In other words, looking to the facts on hand and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harinandan Prasad (supra), we are of the view that as far as issue 'A' is concerned, I.e. whether the benefit of regularization could have been granted by the Industrial Tribunal and in turn confirmed by the learned Single Judge, the answer to the question is in the negative in view of what has been discussed herein above. The Industrial Tribunal and in turn the learned Single Judge fell in error in issuing a direction to the appellant - Municipality to regularize the services of the respondent claimant on the twin counts of the absence of sanctioned posts and in view of the fact that such employees working on daily wage basis were not qualified in accordance with Recruitment Rules.
Gujarat High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 1 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Delhi Jal Board vs Workman Of The Erstwhile Delhi Water ... on 7 February, 2006

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the directions given in paragraph 6 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (supra) wherein directions were issued to regularise employees who had put in three years service cannot be treated as a precedent. Such a direction was given on its own peculiar facts and it does not lay down any principle of law that all employees who had put in three years of service should be confirmed.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 9 - M Katju - Full Document

Project Officer, Soil And Water ... vs Adhikaran Kisanji Zod And Ors. on 9 January, 2006

Industrial Court has relied upon Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (supra) and found that there was no just and sufficient reason for making present respondents Canal Inspectors. As a model employer, petitioners could have issued orders asking respondents to officiate an higher post so that they would have received officiating allowance as per rules. In any case, acting fairly the petitioners could have issued appropriate orders in writing to respondents to show that they were acting honestly and bona fide. Petitioners could have expressed their readiness willingness to compensate respondents for higher work extracted from them by paying them salary of class IV post. Not filling in post though workload was available, asking respondents to discharge that work without proportionate remuneration therefore and taking stand of abolition of those posts on the ground that they had not been filled in for more than six months shows nothing but unfair labour practice indulged into by petitioners. The intention of petitioners to victimise respondents is therefore apparent and petitioners have been benefited in the process. The respondents were entitled to appropriate orders either appointing/promoting them as Canal Inspectors or asking them to officiate as such. The refusal and failure on part of petitioners to issue such orders is apparent an unfair labour practice. Discrimination between respondents and Shri Chaudhari is apparent and violation of doctrine of equal pay for equal work is also revealed. Therefore unfair practice under item 5 and under Item 9 is established. Taking overall view of the matter, I find that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order passed by Industrial Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Vinobha H.B. And 39 Ors. vs Hindustan Photo Films And Anr. on 12 September, 1997

21. The other two decisions, namely, Daily R..C. P&T Departments. Union of India, (supra) and Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (supra), show that persons serving for a long period have to be, regularised. Here, the factual position shows that even though all the petitioners were appointed only as trainees for a fixed period they were not permitted after the expiry of the term. They were assigned various work for the last 2 years prior to the impugned order. Hence the respondents are duty bound to consider the length of service.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Others vs Raj Kumar Srivastava & Others on 5 October, 2017

The words "period of break in service which was longer than three months has to be excluded" when read with the quoted observations of Bhagwati Prasad (supra), it is intended to mean that for the purpose of determination of the issue as to whether a daily wage registration clerks was in "continuous service" as per Rule 4 of 1979 Rules (iii) between the cut off dates i.e. the date of actual appointment which had to be on or before 01.10.1986 and the date of judgement in Khagesh Kumar (supra) dated 12.04.1996; breaks of less than 3 months were not to be taken as having caused a break in the continuous service of the employee. It is only the breaks of a period more than 3 months which will result in the continuity of the employment being broken. The above phrase is with respect to determination of the issue of "continuity in service" and not with reference to any method of counting the period of 3 years.
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Official Liquidator vs Dayananad & Ors on 4 November, 2008

The Court adverted to the theme of constitutionalism in a system established in rule of law, expanded meaning given to the doctrine of equality in general and equality in the matter of employment in particular, multi-facet problems including the one relating to unwarranted fiscal burden on the public exchequer created on account of the directions given by the High Courts and this Court for regularization of the services of persons appointed on purely temporary or ad hoc basis or engaged on daily wages or as casual labourers, referred to about three dozen judgments including R.N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmiah [1972 (1) SCC 409], Daily Rate Casual Labour vs. Union of India [1988 (1) SCC 122], Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation [1990 (1) SCC 361], Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [1990 (2) SCC 396], State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh [1992 (4) SCC 118] and State of Punjab vs. Surinder Kumar [1992 (1) SCC 489] and held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 96 - Cited by 13 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Gopal Singh Khati vs R.F.C. And Others. on 2 April, 2012

Further said decision was rendered by the High Court prior to Uma Devi, relying upon the decision of this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India [1988 (1) SCC 122], Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation [1990 (1) SCC 361] and Dharwad District PWD Literate Dalit Wage Employees Association vs. State of Karnataka [1990 (2) SCC 396]. These directions were considered, explained and in fact, overruled by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi. The decision in Anshkalin Samay Kalyan Singh is no longer good law. At all events, even if there was an one time scheme for regularisation of those who were in service prior to 1.5.1995, there cannot obviously be successive directions for scheme after scheme for regularization of irregular or part-time appointments. Therefore the said decision is of no assistance."
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Workman vs . on 4 March, 2014

32. In view of this observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court, management is not justified to deny regularisation to the workman at her respective post of Nursry Aya, on the ground that she does not possess educational qualification. Hence, the management is directed to consider the case of workman for regularisation, keeping in view the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation AIR 1990 SC 371, and to pass necessary order in this regard separately, giving proper reasons therein, within 03 months from the enforcement of this award. Claim of retiral benefit is incidental to the relief of regularization, order upon which shall be passed by management, as stated above. Issue no.6 and terms of reference are decided accordingly and award is passed in these terms.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next