Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 120 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Kgsd Canteen Employees Welfare ... on 3 January, 2006

Sri. Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2019

8. The present case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Association and Others (cited supra). Accordingly, the contention of the petitioners that official respondents have discriminating petitioners on par with the names mentioned in Annexures-'C', 'J', 'R' and 'S' are concerned. If the official respondents extended illegal benefit to a certain class of persons, in such an event, petitioners have no right to claim such benefits in the absence of any statutory legal right.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

M/S.Ker.Ele.& Allied Engg.Co.Ltd vs Leemns D Cruze on 13 June, 2008

"32. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions in order to show that in each of the aforementioned cases the industrial adjudicator was required to apply the relevant tests laid down by this Court in the fact situation obtained therein. Most of the cases referred to hereinbefore were considered by this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining therein and, thus, it is even not proper for the industrial adjudicator to apply the ratio of one decision to the exclusion of other without considering the facts and circumstances involved therein. The law, however, does not appear to be settled as to whether even in a case where the employer is required to run and maintain a canteen in terms of the provisions of the statute, the employees of the canteen would automatically be held to be the workers of the principal employer for all intent and purport and not for the purpose of the Factories Act alone. We however, are not concerned with the said question in this matter and refrain ourselves from making any observation in respect thereof."
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Jagan - Full Document

Respondents 1 And 2 vs Petitioner And on 13 June, 2008

In the case on hand, a reference was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Assn.(2006 (1) SCC 567), as referred to in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. W.A.NO.1810 OF 2008 & W.A.NO.2060 of 2008 : 10 : This Court finds that the factual position in the said case is quite different from this case, as the concerned canteen in the former case was a canteen run by the 'Karnataka State Government Secretarial Department', which was not a 'factory' under the Factories Act and there was no statutory obligation for the Government to run a canteen as provided under Section 46 of the Factories Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

18. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondents writ petitioners submitted that the Judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen-Employees Welfare Association and Ors. (supra) has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of the present case because that was a case concerned with the question of regularisation whereas the present writ petition is concerned with the declaration of the status of the petitioners.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - G C Gupta - Full Document

West Bengal Registration Copywriters' ... vs State Of West Bengal Service Through The ... on 16 April, 2007

In the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. v. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Association and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court held that the question whether the employees of State Government Secretariat Department Canteen are employees of State Government was a serious question of fact and it was not proper for the High Court to embark thereupon in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that if a committee ran a canteen for the employees of the State Government Secretariat Department that fact could not confer any right upon the employees of such canteen as the State had no statutory compulsion to run and maintain any canteen for its employees and the State had also no intention to run and maintain canteen as its department. In the case before us, the State itself has enacted the statuary rules in exercise of power conferred upon it under the Registration Act for due compliance of the provisions of the said Act and has decided to take the services of the writ-petitioners for the benefit of the Government but without recognising them in terms of the provisions of the Constitution.
Calcutta High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Shaukat Ali Son Of Shri Gulzar Ali, ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through The ... on 6 February, 2006

44. The question which now arises for consideration is as to whether the High Court was justified in directing regularization of the services of the respondents. It was evidently not. In a large number of decisions, this Court has categorically held that it is not open to a High court to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution either to frame a scheme by itself or to direct the State to frame a scheme for regularizing the services of ad hoc employees or daily wage employees who had not been appointed in terms of the extant service rules, framed either under a statute or under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Such a scheme, even if framed by the State would not meet the requirements of law as the executive order made under Article 162 of the Constitution cannot prevail over a statute or statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 thereof. The State is obligated to make appointments only in fulfillment of its constitutional obligation as laid down in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution and not by way of any, regularization scheme. In our constitutional scheme, all eligible persons similarly situated must be given opportunity to apply for and receive considerations for appointments at the hands of-the authorities of the State, denial of such a claim by some officers of the State time and again had been deprecated by this Court. In any view, in our democratic polity, an authority, howsoever high it may, be cannot act in breach of an existing statute or the rules which hold the field.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 9 - R Tiwari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next