Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 344 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Vice Chancellor Luknow University vs Akhilesh Kumar Khare &Amp;Anr on 8 September, 2015

Project Officer vs Mohanlal Kumhar (Prajapati ) on 11 October, 2017

15. Now, coming back to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the employer in order to substantiate his contention that in the case termination of a daily-wager in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, the courts can only direct for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement with or without backwages. Reliance is placed in the recent verdict of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare (supra). In the said case the first issue was regarding regularisation of services of a casual worker or a temporary employee worked for more than 240 days in a year when his appointment was made without following the due process of selection as envisaged under the Rules.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Municipal Coulcil And Another vs Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade on 22 July, 2016

5. Adv. Parihar on behalf of the respective Municipal Councils has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 2015 SC 3473-- Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr. He has also urged that view taken by the learned Judge passing the order of reference on 23.12.2011 in WP 1207/2012 and view of other learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2011 followed by him are correct. The cause for reference i.e. the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Hon. Single Judge noted as taking a different view in fact does not disturb the legal position but reaches a finding of fact and accordingly finds the settled law not applicable. He adds that in present matter the posts are not created or vacancies are not available. Hence, no recruitment process could have been initiated and persons working on daily wages do not acquire any right to post. S. 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:59:15 ::: wp5191.04 15 1965 Act) as also the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as MCSR) govern the recruitment as also employment, hence, the provisions of MSO framed under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 (IE Act) cannot and do not apply. In absence of sanctioned posts, no relief of regularization or permanency can be granted to the workmen.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 222 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The Municipal Council And Another vs Balakdas Sandhu Barekar on 22 July, 2016

5. Adv. Parihar on behalf of the respective Municipal Councils has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 2015 SC 3473-- Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr. He has also urged that view taken by the learned Judge passing the order of reference on 23.12.2011 in WP 1207/2012 and view of other learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2011 followed by him are correct. The cause for reference i.e. the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Hon. Single Judge noted as taking a different view in fact does not disturb the legal position but reaches a finding of fact and accordingly finds the settled law not applicable. He adds that in present matter the posts are not created or vacancies are not available. Hence, no recruitment process could have been initiated and persons working on daily wages do not acquire any right to post. S. 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:59:24 ::: wp5191.04 15 1965 Act) as also the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as MCSR) govern the recruitment as also employment, hence, the provisions of MSO framed under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 (IE Act) cannot and do not apply. In absence of sanctioned posts, no relief of regularization or permanency can be granted to the workmen.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The Municipal Council And Another vs Ratan Tulsiram Nagdeve on 22 July, 2016

5. Adv. Parihar on behalf of the respective Municipal Councils has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 2015 SC 3473-- Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr. He has also urged that view taken by the learned Judge passing the order of reference on 23.12.2011 in WP 1207/2012 and view of other learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2011 followed by him are correct. The cause for reference i.e. the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Hon. Single Judge noted as taking a different view in fact does not disturb the legal position but reaches a finding of fact and accordingly finds the settled law not applicable. He adds that in present matter the posts are not created or vacancies are not available. Hence, no recruitment process could have been initiated and persons working on daily wages do not acquire any right to post. S. 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:59:18 ::: wp5191.04 15 1965 Act) as also the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as MCSR) govern the recruitment as also employment, hence, the provisions of MSO framed under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 (IE Act) cannot and do not apply. In absence of sanctioned posts, no relief of regularization or permanency can be granted to the workmen.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The Muncipal Council And Another vs Ashok Parasram Sansarede on 22 July, 2016

5. Adv. Parihar on behalf of the respective Municipal Councils has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 2015 SC 3473-- Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr. He has also urged that view taken by the learned Judge passing the order of reference on 23.12.2011 in WP 1207/2012 and view of other learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2011 followed by him are correct. The cause for reference i.e. the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Hon. Single Judge noted as taking a different view in fact does not disturb the legal position but reaches a finding of fact and accordingly finds the settled law not applicable. He adds that in present matter the posts are not created or vacancies are not available. Hence, no recruitment process could have been initiated and persons working on daily wages do not acquire any right to post. S. 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:59:26 ::: wp5191.04 15 1965 Act) as also the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as MCSR) govern the recruitment as also employment, hence, the provisions of MSO framed under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 (IE Act) cannot and do not apply. In absence of sanctioned posts, no relief of regularization or permanency can be granted to the workmen.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The Municipal Council And Another vs Kalu Mohammad Janmohammad Sheikh on 22 July, 2016

5. Adv. Parihar on behalf of the respective Municipal Councils has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 2015 SC 3473-- Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr. He has also urged that view taken by the learned Judge passing the order of reference on 23.12.2011 in WP 1207/2012 and view of other learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2011 followed by him are correct. The cause for reference i.e. the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Hon. Single Judge noted as taking a different view in fact does not disturb the legal position but reaches a finding of fact and accordingly finds the settled law not applicable. He adds that in present matter the posts are not created or vacancies are not available. Hence, no recruitment process could have been initiated and persons working on daily wages do not acquire any right to post. S. 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:59:20 ::: wp5191.04 15 1965 Act) as also the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as MCSR) govern the recruitment as also employment, hence, the provisions of MSO framed under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 (IE Act) cannot and do not apply. In absence of sanctioned posts, no relief of regularization or permanency can be granted to the workmen.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

State Of U.P. Thru Executive Engineer ... vs Brahma Dev Tripathi And Another on 6 November, 2019

Likewise, in the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University Lucknow vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare (supra), the workman had worked for about one and a half years and not against any sanctioned post, and likewise, in the decision in District Development Officer Vs. Sateeh Kantilal Amerilya (supra), the workman concerned had broken engagements of a short duration in two spells, one being 5 months 15 days, and the other, 1 year and 9 months. Thus, the decision in those cases by their Lordships of the Supreme Court or by this Court would not come to rescue of the employer, in the facts that obtain here.
Allahabad High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Municicpal Council And Another vs Smt Vithabai Bhiwa Nagrikar on 22 July, 2016

5. Adv. Parihar on behalf of the respective Municipal Councils has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 2015 SC 3473-- Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr. He has also urged that view taken by the learned Judge passing the order of reference on 23.12.2011 in WP 1207/2012 and view of other learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2011 followed by him are correct. The cause for reference i.e. the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Hon. Single Judge noted as taking a different view in fact does not disturb the legal position but reaches a finding of fact and accordingly finds the settled law not applicable. He adds that in present matter the posts are not created or vacancies are not available. Hence, no recruitment process could have been initiated and persons working on daily wages do not acquire any right to post. S. 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:40:53 ::: wp5191.04 15 1965 Act) as also the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as MCSR) govern the recruitment as also employment, hence, the provisions of MSO framed under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 (IE Act) cannot and do not apply. In absence of sanctioned posts, no relief of regularization or permanency can be granted to the workmen.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Registrar vs Principal Labour Court on 26 May, 2016

h) The reliance placed by the University on 2016(1) SCC 521 (Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khre and another) is not correct, since in that case, employees were appointed by the incompetent authorities inspite of ban on appointment http://www.judis.nic.in33/101 W.P.Nos.37681 of 2016 on temporary/daily rated basis. In the above case, the employees therein served only for 3 years. Therefore, only in the above factual situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered for compensation. However, in this case, no such plea was made by the University that 65 workmen shall be given only compensation and that they shall not be given relief of reinstatement, even as an alternative plea. Therefore, the University's argument that these employees shall be given only compensation and that they are not entitled to reinstatement, is liable to be rejected.
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next