Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 264 (1.47 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Council, Sujanpur vs Surinder Kumar on 5 May, 2006

Director Of Industrial Training And vs Pawan Kumar And Another on 13 October, 2011

There was no post on which the present workman could be engaged. Shri Surinder Kumar, Driver, who was senior to the workman and is continuing would have a better right for consideration to any post prior to the petitioner. It is not disputed by the Management that the services of Shri Surinder Kumar who was similarly situated like the present respondent-workman had been terminated and he was reinstated in compliance of the Labour Court award in Reference No. 1399 of 1999. The judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner i.e. Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 967, Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 264 and Range Forest Officer, Rewari and another v. Ram Chander and another 2009 (5) SLR 649 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case the respondent-workman was appointed as Driver on D.C. Rates as Daily Wager even though his appointment was for 89 days on contract basis. The pleaded case before the Labour Court was that in the Directorate of Industrial Training and Vocational Education there were six regular sanctioned posts of Drivers. All the posts had been C.W.P. No. 6112 of 2010 [ 9 ] filled and one person had gone on deputation on 24.9.2001 to the Excise & Taxation Department. While exercising the discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Act the Labour Court was required to give a finding that if the department did not have any vacant sanctioned post of the Driver the benefit of reinstatement with back wages would not be an appropriate relief. In Municipal Council, Sujanpur's case (supra) the Supreme Court has examined the discretionary powers available with the Labour Court which require that the Labour Court considers the facts of each case before passing the order of reinstatement with full back wages. The relief of reinstatement is not to be granted automatically. In the facts of the present case the specific case of the Management before the Labour Court was that apart from six sanctioned posts which were duly filled, there was no post available to reinstate the workman. Merely because the workman had put in 240 days a direction cannot be issued to the Management, which is presently Government department, to reinstate with full back wages. In the case of Shri Surinder Kumar, who was similarly situated as the respondent-workman, the department has reinstated him with full back wages in compliance of Labour Court award in Reference No. 1399 of 1999. Similar benefit is being denied to the workman by taking the plea that there is no vacant post available with the department.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Bahri - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India vs Central Government Industrial ... on 25 February, 2009

Point no. (2) on the basis of our finding and observation as detailed above and discussed to conclude the decision of point no. (1), could be answered. Regularization/absorption is not a mode of appointment and learned Tribunal did not approach the issue taking note of settled legal position reiterated by the Apex Court in the case Uma Devi (3) & Ors. (supra) by confirming earlier cases as already referred to. Power to pass absorption order, by the Tribunal, was within its jurisdiction, as has been canvassed before us by referring the judgments from the side of the learned advocate for the workmen, namely, Municipal Council (supra), other cases, all arose out of application of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In that angle, the judgments have no relevancy to adjudicate this case. Learned Tribunal did not pass any reason of absorption on distinguishing the settled legal position that absorption is not mode of appointment, as such, award of the Tribunal is not legally sustainable so far as direction of permanent absorption. Furthermore, absorption always relates to a post. Tribunal did not identify by discussing as to whether there are permanent posts in the organization. The Tribunal cannot burden the employer with financial liability when particularly employer is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the money of this organization comes from public exchequer.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 56 - Cited by 2 - P K Ray - Full Document

Banshi Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 31 October, 2006

[U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 and Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar, (2006) 5 SCC 173] We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case, having regard to the fact that the appellant has been paid the retiral benefits, where we should interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 36 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Executive Engineer (Electrical) vs Appellate Authority-Cum-Dy. ... on 17 May, 2013

While issuing the writ of certiorari, the order under challenge should not undergo scrutiny of an appellate court. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to show that a jurisdictional error has been committed by the statutory authorities. There must be a breach of the principles of natural justice for resorting to such a course. (Vide Harbans Lal v. Jagmohan Saran, AIR 1986 SC 302; Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar, (2006) 5 SCC 173; Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India, (2008) 2 SCC 417; and CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd, (2008) 14 SCC 171)"
Orissa High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next