Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Employees Of Tannery & Footwear ... vs Union Of India And Others on 7 December, 1990

Shri Ashwani Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Punjab Through The Secretary To ... on 6 July, 1994

In my opinion, when the Supreme Court has upheld the claim of parity in pay scale of the employees of different Corporations (refer to the Employees of Teppery and Footwear Corporation of India and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.), there -can be no rationality in denying regular pay scale to the employees employed in the service of the respondent-State.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gajbir Singh & Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 27 September, 2013

In case of The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others (supra) four categories of employees of the petitioner-Corporation had CWP No. 12184 of 1992 (O&M) -7- raised the claim of parity of pay scales with corresponding posts under the Cotton Corporation of India. Such claim was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon taking specific notice that the nature of duties of the staff falling in all the four categories in both the Corporations i.e. the petitioner-Corporation as also the Cotton Corporation of India were the same. As such, such decision would have no applicability to the facts of the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document

Smt.Pushpa Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2021

In 1991 Supp (2) SCC 565 (The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation 13 WP No.19104/20 & WP No.3365/14 of India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), the employees of one Corporation of Govt. of India claimed parity in the matter of pay scale with their counter parts working in another Corporation of Govt. of India. They claimed that the parity between both the sets of employees working in both the departments was continuously maintained till such time pay scale of similarly situated employees of one Corporation was raised. We are not oblivious of the fact and legal position and test for the purpose of applying principle of equal pay for equal work and age of retirement are different. Yet it is noteworthy that Apex Court opined that both the Corporations are two distinct legal entities, but they are governed by the same Constitution. After 1970, there was no change in duties and functions of persons holding corresponding posts in two organizations. Thus, revising pay scale in one Corporation and depriving the employees of other will be arbitrary and violative of directives contained in part IV of the constitution. In the instant case also, it is not the case of the department that service conditions/job nomenclature of staff nurses of Ayush Department or their counter parts have undergone a change after their appointments and, therefore, for the purpose of analogy, the aforesaid judgments can be relied upon and it can be safely held that staff nurses of Ayush Department are similarly situated qua the staff nurses of other departments. There is no justification at all to deprive the staff nurses of Ayush Department from the age of superannuation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 15 - S Paul - Full Document

Balwant Singh Parihar And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 March, 2006

In support of the aforesaid submissions, Shri Bhandari cited the judgments of the Supreme Court, Calcutta High Court and of this Court in (1) Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (2) Natwar Lal Thanvi v. State of Raj. and Ors. 1988 (1) RLR 932 para No. 24 (3) Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India and Ors. , (4) Employees of Tannery & Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , (5) All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and Ors. , (6) Samir Bhattacharya and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. 1992 (4) SLR 119, para No. 14, (7) State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Harendra Nath Bhowmick and Ors. 1993 (1) SLR 353, para Nos.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - P S Asopa - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next