Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.29 seconds)

Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Its Workmen And Anr. on 21 February, 2007

The demands of judicialpropriety and prudence lies in veering towards, rather than straying away from the guidelines as laid down by the Supreme Court in Naider's case. If therespondent workmen sought to interpret the orders of the Supreme Court in sucha manner, then it was for them to have agitated the issue before the SupremeCourt itself and seek necessary clarifications before the said forum rather thandoing so before the Industrial Tribunal, particularly after taking benefit ofthe scheme formulated by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 29thSeptember, 1988, passed by the Supreme Court and after being regularised in thepost of "casual labourers".
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - H Kohli - Full Document

Chaman Lal Mohal vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana on 12 July, 2013

In support of Kumar Vimal 2013.07.12 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13720 of 2013 3 such argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported as The Registrar, High Court of Madras Vs. R. Rajiah 1988 (3) SCC 211; High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Ishwar Chand 1999 (4) SCC 579; Mahender Pal Vs. Administrator, National Capital Territory of Delhi 2000 (4) SLR 583 (Delhi) and also Single Bench judgment of this in Dewan Chand Vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court & others 2010 (7) SLR 203. Reference has been also made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and another 2013 (1) SLR 380.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - H Gupta - Full Document
1