Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern ... vs Satyajit Majumdar And Ors. on 28 November, 1990

The State Of West Bengal vs Prabir Chakraborty And Swapan Mondal on 17 August, 2007

Indeed it is not possible for a public employer today de facto to employ a person as an employee, and carry on under a subterfuge, that, de jure he is the employee of some other (here non-existent) body. I cannot permit the Kalyani University to take the stand that though for all practical purposes the writ petitioners work as mess or Hostel workers of the Kalyani University, yet, they are to be treated as employees of visiting committee, which never got under way. On this ground, and on the basis of the principles set out in Satyajit Mazumdar's case (supra), the writ petitioners have clearly become employees of Kalyani University.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - G C Gupta - Full Document

Nirmalendu Sekhar Karmakar And Ors. vs The Basumati Corporation Ltd. And Ors. ... on 9 June, 1992

10. Mr. Mukherjee has, also urged that even, if there is some doubts as to the scope or effect of the Order recorded on 26.5.92 and two view are possible as to whether there was some sort of prohibition against the Respondents from taking any further action against the appellants resulting from the assurance given, the view in favour of the appellants-employees must be accepted. Though Mr. Mukherjee has not referred to any decision on the point, we have no doubt that the same is the true position in law as pointed by this Court in a series of Division Bench decisions in State Bank of India v. A.K. Sen (1988 Labour & Industrial Cases 1585), in, Sudhansu Sekhar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (92 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1092), in Divisional Railway Manager v. Satyajit Majumdar (1991 Labour & Industrial Cases 1062) and other cases and it has been ruled that if any action, legislative, executive or Judicial, can yield to two views, the one in favour of the weaker or the poorer party ought to be accepted so that Social Justice can be secured to those who are in dire and greater need therefor. The employees locked up in a forensic battle against the employer are surely the weaker party, notwithstanding their power of collective bargaining and ail that. But as already noted, we entertain no doubt that as a result of the submissions made and assurance given by the Respondents, as recorded by the learned Judge on 26.5.92, the Respondents submitted to and incurred a prohibitory obligation not to disturb the status quo as; on that date vis-a-vis the appellants employees and the learned Judge has, by the impugned Order, expressly modified the same. It should also be noted that even if there was no interim: Order in formal frame, there was in substance a clear obligation on the part of the Respondents to maintain status quo as on 26.5.92 and, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh , tendency of modern Court is to look, not to the letters, but to the object and to deprecate technicalities as it is the substance that counts and must take precedence over mere forms.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1