Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 74 (7.74 seconds)
Documents citing Pyare Lal Sharma vs Managing Director, Jammu & ... on 19 July, 1989

The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Manoj Madhup And Anr on 29 January, 2020

Para-19 of the Pyare Lal Sharma case "19. We may now take up the third point. Sharma was appointed as Chemical Engineer by the Board of Directors. The powers of the Board of Directors to appoint officers of Sharma's category were delegated to the Managing Director on September 12, 1974 and as such from that date the Managing Director or became the appointing authority. Needless to say that employees of the company are not civil servants and as such they can neither claim the protection of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India nor the extension of that guarantee on parity. There is no provision in the Articles of Association or the regulations of the company giving same protection to the employees of the company as is given to the civil servants under Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. An employee of the company cannot, therefore, claim that he cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Since on the date of termination of Sharma's services the Managing Director had the powers of appointing authority, he was legally competent to terminate Sharma's services." Patna High Court L.P.A No.833 of 2014 dt.29-01-2020 50/67 Rule 3 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 postulates that the higher authority has all the powers of any lower authority and, further may, with or without appeal, modify or reverse any orders passed by a lower authority, in a matter primarily within the competence of the lower authority, hence the same itself indicates that the higher authority can exercise the power and function of the lower authority.
Patna High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 3 - S Pandey - Full Document

The Workmen Of Mysore Paper Mills ... vs The Management Of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd on 14 December, 2022

17. The legal position is that identity of the government company remains distinct from the Government. The government company is not identified with the Union but has been placed under a special system of control and conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 619 and 620 of the Companies Act. Merely because the entire shareholding is owned by the Central Government will not make the incorporated company as Central Government. It is also equally well settled that the employees of the government company are not civil servants and so are not entitled to the protection afforded by Article 311 of the Constitution (Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director). Since employees of government companies are not government servants, they have absolutely no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale should be met by the Government. Being employees of the companies it is the responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if the 13 (2003)5 SCC 163
Karnataka High Court Cites 106 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

B. M. Birla Heart Research Centre vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 December, 2023

However, Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the case law reported at 1957 (2) All ELR Page 118, (Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee), (1997) 1 SCC Page 9, (R. Thiruvirkolam Vs. Presiding Officer And Another), (2012) 5 SCC Page 242, (Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others), (1989) 3 SCC Page 448 para 21 (Pyare Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Director & Ors).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next