Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel(With ... on 23 July, 1997

D.D. Upadhyaya And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 27 July, 1998

In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendrakumar Jayantibhai Patel (supra), speaking for the Apex Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare observed, "there is no room for sympathy or equity in the matter of such appointment specially where the recruitment in service is governed by the statutory rules". In the case before the Apex Court, the respondent therein was appointed on ad hoc and temporary basis in services of the Corporation and on which post recruitment was to be made by selection. The respondent has not been selected in selection and then he approached the Tribunal for regularisation of his service. The Tribunal has ordered for his absorption and on the appeal filed by the Corporation, the matter has come up before the Apex Court. It appears from the judgment that long continuation of respondent in service was one of the factors which prevailed with the Tribunal to pass the order for his absorption. In the background of these facts, speaking for the Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare, further observed, "If the reasoning given by the Tribunal is accepted, the statutory recruitment rules would become nugatory or otiose and the department can favour any person or appoint any person without following procedure provided in the recruitment rules which would lead to nepotism and arbitrariness". The Court has further gone to observe, "once the consideration of equity in the fact of statutory rules is accepted then eligible and qualified persons would be sufferers as they would not get any chance to be considered for appointment. The result would be that persons lesser in merit would get preference in the matter of appointment merely on the ground of equity and compassion". The Court has held that, "it is not safe to bend the arms of law only for adjusting equity". Lastly, the Court concluded that the reasoning given by the Tribunal that sympathy demands the absorption of the respondent in service of the Corporation suffers from error of law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - S K Keshote - Full Document

Amreli Municipality vs Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees ... on 9 July, 2004

11.1.10 The case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel, reported in 1998 (1) GLR 17 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 3002 : 1997 (5) Scale 50 : 1997 (6) SCC 650 : 1997 Lab.IC 2881, is a case arising from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent raised a dispute claiming himself to be a permanent Dental Surgeon of the Corporation and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. The Tribunal, by its award, held that the respondent was entitled to be made permanent in the staff of the Corporation. The Corporation challenged the said award in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed by the High Court by holding that the Tribunal, after appreciating evidence on record, recorded a finding that the respondent-employee is a workman having served for requisite number of years, thus, entitled to the benefits of permanent employment. The Corporation approached the Supreme Court against the said decision. In Para 5 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under :
Gujarat High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 116 - Full Document

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Meghajibhai Sanabhai Bhimsuriya on 3 August, 2001

22. Therefore the daily wagers can get the permanent employment only either through the recruitment rules or by way of benefit of the scheme that might have been framed by the concerned employer and the back door entry to the recruitment is always deprecated by the Supreme Court. There is no force in the contention that the employees/plaintiffs are already regularised as per the scheme and entitled to the benefit of permanent status and their rights are violated because their juniors are appointed in other Departments. The trial Court certainly has not taken this aspect into consideration and the trial Court has taken the aspect into consideration which is not applicable at all to the facts of this case. The 4 decisions as mentioned earlier of the Supreme Court as cited on behalf of the plaintiffs have not been properly considered by the trial Court because none of the decisions referred above is applicable to the facts of the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - J R Vora - Full Document

Pratibha Gupta And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 9 February, 1998

The principles laid down in the three decisions referred hereinabove as also in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendra Kumar (AIR 1997 SC 3002) (supra) should be applied in all such cases in order to sustain the people's faith in the system of administration of justice. The time has come when consideration of equity and compassion must give way to the provisions of law.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - K S Kumaran - Full Document

Ram Sagar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 March, 1999

In the second case, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel, the Apex Court had held that, "Once the consideration of equity in the face of statutory rule is accepted then eligible and qualified persons would be sufferers as they would not get any chance to be considered for appointment. The result would be that persons lesser in merit would get preference in the matter of appointment merely on the ground of equity and compassion. It is, therefore, not safe to bend the arms of law only for adjusting equity."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.S.Rajan vs The Secretary To Government on 14 August, 2008

18. With this, when the decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel is examined, in the decision reported in AIR 1997 SC 3002 (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Virendra Kumar) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as to how the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence recorded by a fact finding Tribunal should be dealt with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4 has stated the legal position as under:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Halvad Nagarpalika And Ors. vs Jani Dipakbhai Chandravadanbhai And ... on 8 May, 2003

Keeping this fact in mind, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rightly observed in the case of Municipal Corporation, Bhilaspur (Supra) that, if casual workers or daily-waged or daily-rated workers are now being appointed by the appellant Corporation, in fairness to the respondents whose services were terminated on the principle of "Last-cum-First Go", they should be considered for appointment on daily wages in preference to others by waiving the age bar (if necessary if they are otherwise qualified and eligible for the post).
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 16 - K A Puj - Full Document

Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board ... vs Ketanbhai Dinkarray Pandya on 9 May, 2000

35. As per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendrakumar Jayantibhai Patel, reported in 1998 (1) GLR 17 (SC), as also the decision of this Court in case of Chhagan Ranchhod Kukavava v. General Manager, W.R., Bombay, reported in 1998 (1) GLH 461 as also the case reported in AIR 2000 SC 931 (Mohan Ambaprasad Aghnihotri v. Bhaskar Balwant), an order passed by the labour Court and/or the tribunal can be challenged under Art. 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India only if there is any jurisdictional error or procedural error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and assess the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the competent Courts or the tribunal. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court and of the Apex Court, since no infirmity and/or jurisdictional error has been painted out by the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Board and since he has also not been able to establish that the findings of fact recorded by the labour Court are based on no evidence, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order passed by the labour Court in the recovery applications. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petitions filed by the petitioner-Board. Accordingly, all these petitions are dismissed. Rule in each petition is discharged. Ad interim relief granted earlier in each petition shall stand vacated with no order as to costs.
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 32 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Executive Engineer vs Bhima Ramaji Purohit on 25 April, 2000

Further, in view of two decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel, [1998 (1) GLR 17] and of Chhagan Ranchod Kukvava v. General Manager, Western Railways, Bombay & Anr., [1998 (1) GLH 461], this Court cannot act as an appellate authority and also cannot reappreciate the evidence which was led before the Labour Court. Therefore, according to my opinion, there is no substance in this petition. The same stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next