Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (1.96 seconds)
Documents citing Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 26 December, 2018

_____________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Others on 17 September, 2019

10. When the matter came up before this Court in Jai Singh's case (supra), learned counsel for the respondents therein relied upon the judgment in Dr. K. Ramulu and another vs. Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao and others (1997) 3 SCC 59 and another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Agarwal and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2011) 6 SCC 725, to contend that the State was well within its right to fill up the posts on the basis of the amended rules. Both the judgments were held to be not applicable to the facts of the case and it was observed as under:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 19 November, 2020

2. A legal question needs firm answering before the individual factual matrix involved in these writ petitions can be separately examined. To explain the law point involved, for convenience, we lift bare minimum facts from the lead case CWP No. 2190/2020, Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The petitioner had worked with H.P. Public Works Department from 1988 to 1993. His services were allegedly illegally terminated in 1993. Twenty six years later he raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice received by the respondents on 24.6.2019. The Labour Commissioner/appropriate Government after relying upon some decisions of this Court refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court on grounds of delay. Reference of dispute by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is governed by provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 10(1) being relevant is extracted hereinafter:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 19 November, 2020

2. A legal question needs firm answering before the individual factual matrix involved in these writ petitions can be separately examined. To explain the law point involved, for convenience, we lift bare minimum facts from the lead case CWP No. 2190/2020, Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The petitioner had worked with H.P. Public Works Department from 1988 to 1993. His services were allegedly illegally terminated in 1993. Twenty six years later he raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice received by the respondents on 24.6.2019. The Labour Commissioner/appropriate Government after relying upon some decisions of this Court refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court on grounds of delay. Reference of dispute by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is governed by provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 10(1) being relevant is extracted hereinafter:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 19 November, 2020

2. A legal question needs firm answering before the individual factual matrix involved in these writ petitions can be separately examined. To explain the law point involved, for convenience, we lift bare minimum facts from the lead case CWP No. 2190/2020, Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The petitioner had worked with H.P. Public Works Department from 1988 to 1993. His services were allegedly illegally terminated in 1993. Twenty six years later he raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice received by the respondents on 24.6.2019. The Labour Commissioner/appropriate Government after relying upon some decisions of this Court refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court on grounds of delay. Reference of dispute by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is governed by provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 10(1) being relevant is extracted hereinafter:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 19 November, 2020

2. A legal question needs firm answering before the individual factual matrix involved in these writ petitions can be separately examined. To explain the law point involved, for convenience, we lift bare minimum facts from the lead case CWP No. 2190/2020, Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The petitioner had worked with H.P. Public Works Department from 1988 to 1993. His services were allegedly illegally terminated in 1993. Twenty six years later he raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice received by the respondents on 24.6.2019. The Labour Commissioner/appropriate Government after relying upon some decisions of this Court refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court on grounds of delay. Reference of dispute by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is governed by provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 10(1) being relevant is extracted hereinafter:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 19 November, 2020

2. A legal question needs firm answering before the individual factual matrix involved in these writ petitions can be separately examined. To explain the law point involved, for convenience, we lift bare minimum facts from the lead case CWP No. 2190/2020, Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The petitioner had worked with H.P. Public Works Department from 1988 to 1993. His services were allegedly illegally terminated in 1993. Twenty six years later he raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice received by the respondents on 24.6.2019. The Labour Commissioner/appropriate Government after relying upon some decisions of this Court refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court on grounds of delay. Reference of dispute by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is governed by provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 10(1) being relevant is extracted hereinafter:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 19 November, 2020

2. A legal question needs firm answering before the individual factual matrix involved in these writ petitions can be separately examined. To explain the law point involved, for convenience, we lift bare minimum facts from the lead case CWP No. 2190/2020, Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The petitioner had worked with H.P. Public Works Department from 1988 to 1993. His services were allegedly illegally terminated in 1993. Twenty six years later he raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice received by the respondents on 24.6.2019. The Labour Commissioner/appropriate Government after relying upon some decisions of this Court refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court on grounds of delay. Reference of dispute by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is governed by provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 10(1) being relevant is extracted hereinafter:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 19 November, 2020

2. A legal question needs firm answering before the individual factual matrix involved in these writ petitions can be separately examined. To explain the law point involved, for convenience, we lift bare minimum facts from the lead case CWP No. 2190/2020, Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The petitioner had worked with H.P. Public Works Department from 1988 to 1993. His services were allegedly illegally terminated in 1993. Twenty six years later he raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice received by the respondents on 24.6.2019. The Labour Commissioner/appropriate Government after relying upon some decisions of this Court refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court on grounds of delay. Reference of dispute by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is governed by provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 10(1) being relevant is extracted hereinafter:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Jai Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 19 November, 2020

2. A legal question needs firm answering before the individual factual matrix involved in these writ petitions can be separately examined. To explain the law point involved, for convenience, we lift bare minimum facts from the lead case CWP No. 2190/2020, Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The petitioner had worked with H.P. Public Works Department from 1988 to 1993. His services were allegedly illegally terminated in 1993. Twenty six years later he raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice received by the respondents on 24.6.2019. The Labour Commissioner/appropriate Government after relying upon some decisions of this Court refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court on grounds of delay. Reference of dispute by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is governed by provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 10(1) being relevant is extracted hereinafter:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next