Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 731 (1.13 seconds)

Ghanshyam Dubey vs Presiding Officer Labour Court And Anr. on 1 March, 2019

12. The Supreme Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) held that a term 'temporary employee' refers to a general category comprising several sub-categories of employees namely, casual employees, daily wage employees and ad-hoc employees, etc. Further, a daily wage or casual worker being a temporary employee had no right to any post or to be continued in service. Engagement of such an employee did not amount to appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. That was stated to be the distinction between the temporary employee and the permanent employee. Also, it was stated, while a permanent employee had a right to a post, a temporary employee had no such right. Also, it was noted, while a permanent employee would have a right to continue in service till attaining the age of superannuation (unless dismissed or removed in the meanwhile), a temporary employee did not have an age of superannuation as he did not have any right to a post at all. On such reasoning, it was concluded, no direction may be passed in the case of a temporary employee whereby he may claim continuance till attaining the age of superannuation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - S D Singh - Full Document

Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Ii And ... on 1 March, 2019

"12. The Supreme Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) held that a term 'temporary employee' refers to a general category comprising several sub-categories of employees namely, casual employees, daily wage employees and ad-hoc employees, etc. Further, a daily wage or casual worker being a temporary employee had no right to any post or to be continued in service. Engagement of such an employee did not amount to appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. That was stated to be the distinction between the temporary employee and the permanent employee. Also, it was stated, while a permanent employee had a right to a post, a temporary employee had no such right. Also, it was noted, while a permanent employee would have a right to continue in service till attaining the age of superannuation (unless dismissed or removed in the meanwhile), a temporary employee did not have an age of superannuation as he did not have any right to a post at all. On such reasoning, it was concluded, no direction may be passed in the case of a temporary employee whereby he may claim continuance till attaining the age of superannuation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - S D Singh - Full Document

Arun Kumar vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 15 February, 2016

In the case Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Workmen Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra), it was held that the rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed, and the Court/Tribunal cannot direct regularization of temporary appointees de hors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of their service. It was further held that "Regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment by any "State", and any appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions is illegal.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kolkata vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2024

In the decision of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 408 cited by Mr. Dutta, it was held that casual/daily-rated/ad hoc employees and temporary employees have no right to permanent posts and hence cannot claim permanent absorption. The said case is distinguishable in the facts of the instant case where the petitioners were admittedly engaged against the permanent posts.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - R Mantha - Full Document

Kolkata vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2024

In the decision of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 408 cited by Mr. Dutta, it was held that casual/daily-rated/ad hoc employees and temporary employees have no right to permanent posts and hence cannot claim permanent absorption. The said case is distinguishable in the facts of the instant case where the petitioners were admittedly engaged against the permanent posts.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - R Mantha - Full Document

Smt. Veena Gupta W/O Shri Lalit Gupta vs Director Of Education, Lt. Governor ... on 20 February, 2008

In the case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , the Supreme Court has held that the Courts cannot create a post where none exists and cannot issue directions to absorb/regularize temporary employees, nor can continue such employees in service nor pay them salaries of regular employees as these are purely executive or legislative functions. The Apex Court further held that judicial activism in this connection is deprecated. The Apex Court even went to the extent of holding that such questions of granting regularization by the Courts must be decided on legal principles and not on the basis of emotions and sympathies. Reference is invited to the following observations of the Supreme Court:
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next